
Glass H^ 3^^ 

Book ■ A / 5 

M17^ 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL 



HEARINGS 



OjN 



H. R. 4285 



HELD BEFORE THE ^ 

COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

CONSISTING OF 
JOHN H. SMALL, North Carolini, Chairman. 




CHARLES F. BOOHER, Missouri. 
THOMAS GALLAGHER, Illinois. 
THOMAS J. SCULLY, New Jersey. 
WILLIAM KETTNER, California. 
SAMUEL M. TAYLOR, Arkansas. 
MURRAY HULBERT, New York. 
H. GARLAND DUPRE, Louisiana. 
MARTIN DIES. Texas. 
OSCAR L. GRAY, Alabama. 
GEORGE K. DENTON, Indiana. 



HUBERT F. FISHER, Tennessee. 
CHARLES A. KENNEDY, Iowa. 
ROBERT M. SWITZER, Ohio. 
ALLEN T. TREADWAY, Massachusetts. 
JAMES A. FREAR, Wisconsin. 
DOW H. DRUKKER, New Jersey. 
PETER E. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania. 
S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, New York. 
HENRY I. EMERSON, Ohio. 
HENRY Z. OSBORNE, California. 



William C. Buooker, Clerk. 

Joseph H. McGxyy, Assistant Clerk. 



MAY 1, 2, 3, AND 5, 1917 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

Ji)l7 



<■> 






D. of D. 
NOV \0 1917 



lUVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 



Committee on Rivers axd Harbors, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday^ May 7, 191'T.. 

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. John H. Small (chair- 
man) presiding. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we have with us this morning Col- 
Newcomer, from the office of the Chief of- Engineers, and, unless the 
committee directs otherwise, we will take up these recommendations^ 
made by the Secretar}^ of War, in the order as they appear in the 
recommendations which have been printed. 

Col. Newcomer, the Secretary of War has submitted certain recom- 
mendations to be included in a river and harbor bill at this session 
for maintenance and improvement. Will you kindly state upon 
what basis or conditions these recommendations were made? 

STATEMENT OF COL. HENRY C. NEWCOMER, OFFICE OF THE 
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS. 

Col. Newcomer. Mr. Chairman, I will state that these recom- 
mendations originated from a recommendation made by the Chief 
of Engineers to the Secretary of War at a time when it appeared 
very doubtful whether any river and harbor legislation would be 
enacted this year. He felt that the situation of the general trans- 
portation service of the country was such as to require some work, 
not only for the more urgent commercial needs but also for certain 
military purposes as a matter of defense. For that reason he pre- 
pared a brief memorandum, which he took up to the Secretary of 
War, accompanied by a copy of the bill. He took this Senate bill 
as the basis for his action, and in arranging the program for the 
more urgent military and commercial needs Ave struck out the items 
which we felt might be omitted at this time. We do not mean, of 
course, that we consider those items that were stricken out unim- 
portant or not useful, but they were simply considered as ones that 
might be eliminated in the process of pruning in order to get down 
to what might be considered as the essentials most necessaiT at this 
time. That memorandum and the proposed schedule of items were 
taken by the Secretary to the President, and it was understood that 
they received his assent. In fact, we were convinced from what 
took place later that the administration was quite willing to have 
a bill substantially the same as the bill as it passed the House and 
was amended by the Senate Committee on Commerce. 

^Ir. Frear. At the last session ? 

3 



4 KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; at the last session. But further consid- 
eration led to a modification of that attitude, and a reversion to the 
first one of taking care of only the more urgent cases. 

Mr. Treadway. As I understand it, this started with the Chief of 
Engineers having a brief memorandum, as you stated, and then you 
supplemented that with the list contained in this bill ? 

Col. Newcomer. It was a brief memorandum, or simply a state- 
ment calling attention to the necessity of making some provision for 
these matters. 

Mr. Treadavay. Was that an itemized statement ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; it was simply a brief memorandum re- 
ferring to the general situation, and it was accompanied by this 
itemized list just as you have it here. That list contains all the items 
that were in the bill as it was reported to the Senate by the Senate 
Committee on Commerce at the last session. We have simply stricken 
out some of them. We have simply crossed out with a pencil the 
ones that Ave felt might be omitted in the present emergency. That 
list, as I said, accompanied the memorandum, and it Avas the one 
that Avent to the President. 

Mr. Treadavay. The reason I asked that question was that I saw 
in the press about the time of this conference — but that, of course, 
does not make it in any sense otHcial — a list Avhich Avas approved, as 
I understood it, by the Secretary of War. It Avas a A^ery brief list 
of some important harbors of the country Avhich were approved bj^ 
the Secretary of War for appropriation at this time. Noav, Avas that 
the memorandum that you liaA^e referred to? 

Col. Neavcomer. I hardly think so. That Avas one submitted by the 
Secretary of War with reference to channels required by the fleet of 
defense, Avas it not ? 

Mr. Treadavay. I think so. 

Col. Neavcomer. There Avas in last year's naA^al appropriation act a 
provision requiring the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the 
NaA^y to report to Congress as soon as possible the additional work 
required for harbor and channel improvements required for the oper- 
ations of the fleet of defense. In response to that provision of laAv 
the matter Avas taken up, first by the joint board of the xVrmy and 
Navy, Avhich approA^ed, as the basis for further action, the rej^ort 
Avhich had already been made by the General Board of the Navy, in 
Avhich they discussed that situation and took up certain localities 
Avhich they said should receive additional improvement for the 
operation of the fleet of defense. That Avas simply submitted as an 
ordinary congressional document and is not especially involved in 
this. Some of the items that Avere in that program are not in this 
bill, although there are some others that are included. As a matter 
of fact, there is only one of those items that is really included in 
this bill, and that Avas in the bill as introduced last session in the 
Senate. The question as to Avho should take up those items for the 
purely naval defense Avas a question that Ave did not think should 
come before the department. 

In other Avords, I mean by that that the information has been sent 
to Congress, and Avhether they Avill appropriate for it in the naval 
bill or in some other bill, Ave do not knoAV, because it is not strictly 
speaking river and harbor improvement. For instance, for the East 
River, New York, the Navy Department asked for a depth ot 40 



EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 5 

feet to the navy yard, while we had proposed 35 feet. Thirty-five 
feet is ample for all commercial needs, but the Navy wants the 
greater depth and. primarily, that should be provided for from some 
other fund than the river and harbor fund, because the latter is in- 
tended mainly for commercial needs. We have already reported to 
Congress that a depth of 35 feet in the East River is desirable for 
commercial needs. [Attention is invited to Col. Newcomer's testi- 
mony on May 3. from which it appears that it had been the Chief 
of Engineer's intention to include in the bill all the items reported in 
Senate Document Xo. 3, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, as re- 
r'l'n-ed noAv for naval defense, but through misunderstanding this 
? not done at first. The matter was corrected by amendments to 
bill proposed on May 3.] 
Ir. HuLBERT. Why do you say that 40 feet is more than the com- 

.'cial needs require in that river? 

^ 'ol. Xewco^^ier. It is because they do not need an}^ more than 
that in the East River. 

The Chairman. I suggest that we permit Col. Newcomer to make 
his general statement before taking up the specific items. 

Col. Neavcomer. I might state, to supplement the outline I have 
already given, that this matter, of course, had to be taken up rather 
hurriedly, and the result does not necessarih^ mean that the items 
omitted were not advisable at this time. A final survey of the 
whole situation might possibly indicate otherwise. As a matter of 
fact, after submitting that first list, the matter was taken up with 
reference to a few improvements which were modified. For instance, 
there was put in the item for the improvement of the mouth of the 
Brazos River, and that was done on account of the sulphur situation. 
Our first information did not indicate that it was essential at this 
time to make any further provision for that, because we did not 
appreciate at that time the extent to which sulphur enters into the 
munitions industry. Heretofore the ore used in the manufacture of 
sulphuric acid had been obtained mainly from Spain, but on account 
of the lack of ocean freight-carr3dng ships they could not get pyrites 
from abroad, and the}^ now are forced to use sulphur. We put in 
that item for the improvement of the Brazos River for that reason, 
because that is one of the two places where sulphur is obtained in 
this country. There may be other instances where more thorough 
information might lead to modifications, but that list represents the 
best judgment of the Chief of Engineers based upon the informa- 
tion he had at the time it was prepared. 

Mr. Frear. Mav I inquire what is the total amount carried in this 
bill? 

Col. Newcomer. The total amount is, I think, $26,897,000. 

Mr. Frear. And from that has been deducted the Mississippi 
River item? 

Col. Newco^ier. No, sir: tjie Mississippi River item was not in- 
cluded in this bill. 

Mr. Frear. But that has been deducted from the old bill. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. And this, also, as near as I can ascertain, deducts the 
amount that was carried for the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal f 

Col. Newcomer. AVe took the Senate bill in that respect. In 
other words, we took the Senate provision for the condemnation, 
with a small appropriation to cover the expenses of condemnation. 



b RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. Frear. What was the total for that in the House bill— 
$1,300,000? 

Col. Newcomer. It was $1,300,000 as it passed the House. 

Mr. Frear. I think we will have to have this preliminarv under- 
standing of the matter so that Ave nia}^ get the views of the engi- 
neers. 

Col. Newcomer. I might state this, that no amount reported as 
required for maintenance was cut out, and the only eliminations were 
those new projects which we considered not of a realh^ urgent nature, 
or not of such an urgent nature as would require their insertion in 
the bill at this time. We did that with a view of cutting down the 
total. Then, also, there were a few works of improvement that 
had already been authorized where the amounts for further con- 
tinuing improvements were reduced or eliminated, because those 
were works that we did not consider as entering so strongly into the 
necessities of the case at this time. There were other works where the 
appropriations were continued because we felt that where the Gov- 
ernment had embarked upon an improvement of a very extensive and 
costly nature, the work should not be allowed to lag.^ For instance, 
there is the work on the upper Mississippi River, where, as you know, 
they are having conferences with a view to developing the traffic. 
There is a conference to be held next Tuesday in St. Louis on that 
subject, which will be attended b}^ the governors from all those 
States that are interested. As you know, they have built some docks 
nt Minneapolis, and the same thing has been clone at Dubuque. St. 
Louis is doing the same thing, and earnest efforts are being made 
to actually utilize the waterway. 

Moreover, that is being done in connection with the present effort 
to coordinate all the transportation agencies of the country. That 
is being done very effectively under the direction of the railroad 
officials, so far as the railroads are concerned, but they have appar- 
ently paid very little attention to the waterways, and an effort is 
being made now to secure such coordination between the waterways 
and railroads as will assist in relieving the rail congestion and in 
improving the general transportation service. Take, for instance, 
the Mississippi River: That river is capable of carrying a large 
amount of commerce that would considerably relieve the congestion 
on the north and south lines of railroad. 

Mr. Frear. There is no freight line operating on the upper Mis- 
sissippi River. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; I think there is one. 

Mr. Frear. No ; that is a passenger line, and it depends upon pas- 
senger traffic and excursions for its revenues. 

Col. Newcomer. There is no barge line there at present. We do 
not look upon the boats running there now as being very useful in 
a large way as a freight-handling agency. Of course they handle 
some freight in the way of express freight, which is important. 
But if you will take any development of waterway traffic on a large 
scale you will find that it will probably have to come in the way of 
barge traffic, and that is just what we are trying to get at, as they 
have done on the Missouri River, for instance. 

Mr. Frear. I would like to ask some questions touching the matter 
of policy in the submission of these items. I notice that in a good 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 7 

many of these items you have joined quite a large number of 
projects — that is, projects for maintenance. Take page 2 of the bill, 
for illustration, and you will find in the first item about a dozen 
projects, whereas there were only two of them in that item in the 
former bill as it passed the House. Now, I am asking that for the 
purpose of ascertaining what is the reason for the other 10 being 
placed here. For instance, in this particular case, what is the pur- 
pose of using any part of this fund for Gloucester ? 

The Chairman. In answer to that question w^ill you state what 
Avas the polic}^ adopted and the reasons for it? 

Col. Newcomer. The purpose of grouping or consolidating items 
which are in the same general geographical location, and always 
grouped according to the engineer districts in which they are now 
included, was to get a more advantageous and economical use of the 
funds provided. It is obvious that in making estimates a year ahead, 
and generally a year and a half in advance of the time when the 
funds are to be supplied, Ave can not foresee Avhat the needs will 
tictually be. We have to make more or less of a guess based upon 
our past experience as nearly as we can make it. Noav, when a fund 
is estimated for a particular Avork and is appropriated specifically 
for that particular Avork in the laAv, it is not applicable to the work 
provided for in any other fund, and therefore shifting needs, as they 
may develop with the passage of time, can not be met by any shifting 
of the funds. There is no reason at all that we can see Avhy it Avould 
not be advantageous to haA^e certain groups of improvements in that 
Avay, or Avhy we should not have an emergency fund available, so 
that we might apply so much of it as might be necessary to the need 
as it dcA'elops. In the long run it Avill obAdously require a smaller 
amount of funds to be set aside for a project if it is done in that Avay 
than if you specifically provide for each one. 

Mr. Frear. Suppose it was the judgment of the committee that 
one or more of the items carried in this group of items, or in this 
consolidation of items, was more important than the others, or that 
some ought to be appropriated for and others stricken out, under 
this method what means could be adopted by the committee in pre- 
paring the bill ? This, as I understand it, is a new proposition, ex- 
cept in so far as it was begun to a small extent in the last bill. 

Col. Neavcomer. It Avas not only adopted in the last bill, but it 
has been practiced to a certain extent for a number of years. It has 
proved so useful that Ave think it is a good policy to haA^e it this Avay. 

Mr. Frear. But if the committee differed from the engineers, let 
me inquire how could we determine Avhat should be stricken out 
or should be added to? Suppose, for instance, Ave wanted to 
add to it. 

Col. Neavcomer. That could very readily be done. 

Mr. Frear. Hoav could Ave determine it? 

Col. Neavcomer. Simply by leaA^ng out the names. 

Mr. Frear. But there is no statement of the amount that shall 
go to each project. That is left to the engineers. You Avill find 
that provision on page 27 of the bill. 

Col. Neavcomer. That can be done very readily in this Avav : In 
the first place, I might state that Ave propose to cover each item in the 
annual report, shoAving Avith respect to each locality the amount that 



8 BIVER AND HAKBOE APPEOPKIATION BILL. 

is proposed to be used there both for maintenance and for work of 
improvement. 

Mr. .Frear. Then afterwards you have the right to make a change 
or to make a new allotment under this provision on page 27 of 
the bill? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; we ask for that right in order that we 
may shift the funds to meet shifting needs. 

Mr. Frear. I am giving you the committee's position. The com- 
mittee would simply appropriate that lump sum to the engineers to 
distribute as they deem best. 

Col. Newcomer. Substantially so. But to meet your other que 
tion, the committee can very readily control the thing down to th 
least detail, if they desire to do so, by simply stating for the main 
tenance of such a harbor so much, and you could, of course, with- 
draw that general provision if you think Ave can not be trusted with 
the distribution of that fund to meet the shifting needs. 

Mr. Frear. If the engineers could have been trusted all these 
years in. the past, why were they not trusted? As a matter of fact,, 
the committee has hitherto reserved to itself the right to say how 
much shall be expended for the maintenance or improvement of each 
one of the various projects. 

Col. Newcomer, I do not think the committee has done that in the 
past. It has not been so insistent about questions of maintenance 
as it has about questions of improvements. In other Avords, the 
maintenance funds have nearly ahvays been granted, I think, without 
much question, and it is only 'the question of how rapidly improve- 
ments shall proceed that the committee has been insistent about. 
You will notice that Ave haA^e discriminated here as betAveen main- 
tenance and improvements. The maintenance fund has been put 
in a lump sum for all the projects, and then AVe have stated, " for 
the improvements of such a project or locality, so much." Of course, 
if the committee pleases or if Congress pleases, Ave could be limited 
to that amount, and the discretionary power could be AvithdraAvn, but 
I do not think that it Avould be at all dangerous to alloAV it. 

Mr. Kettner. The committee last year discussed this problem on 
seA'eral occasions, and Ave Avere generally agreed upon the proposition 
that Ave should turn oA^er lump sums to the engineers for maintenance. 
This matter Avas discussed on seA^eral occasions last year. 

Mr. Treadavay. Before the colonel leaves that question that Mr. 
Frear brought up in connection Avith the grouping system I Avould 
like to ask his interpretation of the sentence in line 18, on page 27, 
Avhere it refers to these projects, both individually and in groups. 
The language I refer to is as f oIIoavs : 

In case such works or items are consolidated, and separate amounts are given 
to individual projects, the amount so named shall be expended upon such sepa- 
rate projects unless, in tlie discretion of tlie ('hief of Enjiineers and the Secre- 
tary of War, another allotment or division should be made of the same. 

What is your interpretation of that sentence, "Another allotment or 
division should be made of the same"? 

C\)l. Neavcomer. That provision is copied A^erbatim from the pro- 
vision Avhich accompanied the former consolidation of items, and I 
understand that its purpose is to permit the Engineer Department to 
readjust the funds Avhere the needs shoAv that the funds provided for 



RIVER AXD HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. \) 

one project, for instance, is not required and it is needed for another. 
For instance, take the improvement of the upper Hudson River. 
There is a case where the improvement has been estimated to cost so 
much, but it looks now as though we Avould save quite a little sum 
there on that improvement. If there were some other Avorks grouped 
with that the sum not required for the upper Hudson improvement 
could be applied where it was needed. I do not recall that such a 
diversion has ever been made, but it is something that might be use- 
ful under certain conditions. 

Mr. Tkeadavay. AVould it not practicalh^ mean that in spite of the 
individual appropriations for maintenance, or in spite of the groups 
as you have arranged them, there would still be discretionary power 
in the hands of the Chief of Engineers or the Secretary of War to 
practically lump the entire number of items and saj^ " We do not 
need it here, and therefore we will spend it there " ? It does not 
look to me as though that places it so that you would be required to 
use it for items in a given group. For instance, Mr. Frear has re- 
ferred to that item of $24-,00(), on page 2, which is the first item in the 
bill ; $-2-i,000 is estimated there for those various items, but as I inter- 
pret the language I have just read, on page 27, if you did not want 
to use that mone}^ on any of those items mentioned there you could 
expend it under the third item there on account of the various items 
in Connecticut? 

Col. Xewcomer. Xo, sir. This language simply means liberty of 
transfer or readjustment as between items in that particular consoli- 
dated list, and not as between different groups. 

Mr. Treadway. That is what I wanted your interpretation of. I 
should construe that to mean that you could use it anywhere. 

Col. Xeavcomer. It is confined to the group, and, of course, it is 
to be assumed. I think, that the department, in carrying out the will 
of Congress as expressed in the law, would have to carry out that 
intent so far as the circumstances Avould permit. It is only in view 
of changing circumstances that they would ever make any readjust- 
ment of that. This is simply to give discretion to the department 
to meet shifting circumstances. I think the engineer department has 
the reputation with you people, as a rule, of living up to the intent 
of the law as we understand it. We do not try to evade it, I think, 
in any case. 

Mr. CosTELLO. I notice that for the improvement of these various 
projects in the new bill there is a very material reduction from the 
amount that is carried in the old bill for the different projects that 
are gi^ouped in the ncAv bill. Now, I interpret that to mean that the 
War Department is going to expend just sufficient money to main- 
tain the work that has already been done on these different projects 
to save them from deteriorating and for the purpose of maintaining" 
them, and the idea was to enable you to have enough money allotted 
to take up whichever projects required your attention within the 
amount of the appropriation as a whole. 

Col. Newcomer. That is substantially the case, except in this re- 
spect, that reductions have not been made in the amounts required 
for maintenance. Those were ordinarily reduced originally as far as 
we felt that they could be reduced, but the reductions here are in the 
amounts for further improvement. 

Mr. Hulbert. I would like to laiow where it is reduced. 



10 * EIVEE AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. Gallagher. This language reads: 

Any ))alaii('es remaining' to tlie credit of the consolidated items shalls be 
carried to the credit of the respective aggregate amounts appropriated for the 
consolidated items. 

That means if you have anything remaining over, then you could 
shift it to wherever you want to shift it for the consolidated items. 

Col. Newcomer. Those balances left on hand in a group are cred- 
ited to the group instead of to separate items and can be distributed 
as the needs of the work require. 

Mr. HuLBERT. I would like to ask one other question: When Col. 
Xewcomer appeared before the committee last year, my recollection 
is that he stated that that $24„000 vvas estimated in order to maintain 
the Mystic and Maiden Rivers. Now, having included about 12 other 
items in that paragraph on page 2, 1 would like to ask Col. Newcomer 
whether he has found that he can consistently reduce the amount 
which he originally expected to expend on the Mystic and Maiden 
Rivers ? 

Col. Neavcomer. It is not expected to reduce that at all, but it is 
expected that the $24,000 will be used on the Mystic and Maiden 
Rivers. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Then, these other items are simply surplusage. 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; because it brings those new items into a 
different situation. If you Avill look at our annual report for last 
year you will find that those items are carried in the annual report, 
but in estimating for additional funds no estimate for them was 
made for this year, 1918, because none was required. Now, the 
grouping of these items together would make available the use of 
this $24,000 for any of these items as conditions may require. In 
other words, as a matter of fact, we might expend, and under this 
authority Ave could expend, some of that fund for other Avork if 
changing conditions should make it necessarv. 

Mr. HuLBERT. In other words, the items included in the first para- 
graph substantially create a district, Avith the idea that the money 
allotted or provided for that district can be expended by you Avithin 
that district Avherever it may seem essential. 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. My recollection is that for a number of A^ears 
there have been some groups of that kind. 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. For instance, this provision on page 
27, about Avhich Ave have been speaking, is copied practically ver- 
batim from the river and harbor act of 1912, Avhicli consolidated 
quite a number of items in different parts of the country. This is 
simply a further use of the same methods that Avere adopted at that 
time for certain localities. 

Mr. Treadavay. The act of 1912 specified Avhere those consolida- 
tions should be, did it not, or Avas it a general proA'ision? 

Col. Neavcomer. That act consolidated a number of items by ar- 
ranging them in groups. It also had this general provision like the 
one on page 27, and in that case it Avas made a part of the first sec- 
tion, to indicate that Avhere items Avere so consolidated the funds 
should be handled in the Avay described. 

The Chairman. I think there Avere about IG consolidations or 
groups in the last bill reported by the committee and as it passed the 
House. 



II 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 11 

I ^vould like to sa}^ just a word ^Yhicll might amplify and further 
explain what Col. Newcomer has stated: The grouping here only 
includes items of maintenance, and where there is included in a 
group any appropriation for improvement, it is so stated specifically, 
and in that case the appropriation is limited to that specific item 
of imrovement. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Suppose there is a balance? 

Ccl. Xewcomer. As a general proposition, it does give discre- 
tion, undoubtedly, to the Secretary of 'War and the Chief of 
Engineers to readjust these funds if the circumstances change. 

The Chair3iax. For instance, you might complete a project with 
a sum less than the amount estimated or appropriated, and, if so, 
the surplus could be used for any specific item or items in that group 
where it should be necessary to use it. 

Mr. Gallagher. Before Col. Newcomer gets away from his gen- 
eral statement, I would like to inquire whether he has a copy of the 
letter that the Chief of Engineers sent to the Secretary of War? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir ; I have not, L am sorry to say. That was 
a typewritten sheet of not more than two pages. 

Mr. Gallagher. Can we have a copy of it ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Hflbert. Do I understand that if in the performance of a 
given improvement there were to be a saving — and, as I recollect it, 
there was in one case a saving of $1,500,000 — do I understand that 
upon the completion of such a project the balance would remain to 
the credit of that particular group of projects or the district? 

The Chairman. If such should be the case, but you will find that 
these items for maintenance are comparatively small. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; as a rule. Very few of these items in- 
volved here are large. 

Mr. HuLRERT. Would it not follow that in a harbor like New 
York, where you haA^e several tributaries, that the balances would 
be credited to them? 

Col. Newcomer. We have not grouped those extensive works. As 
a matter of fact, in New York there are three districts, and. as a 
rule, we do not want to group together works that are in different 
districts and thereby involve a transfer of funds between different 
disbursing officers. 

Mr. Osborne. Under this item that has been referred to in the 
first paragraph, for the maintenance of the Mystic and Maiden 
Eivers, as I understand it, there are some small unexpended balances 
for maintenance in these other places? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Osborne. Now, is it necessary in the handling of these un- 
expended funds that these names should be included in this bill? 

Col. Newcomer. To get the authority that is given by this bill — ■ 
yes. sir: certainly. Otherwise we could not, of course, divert any- 
thing from Gloucester to Beverly. 

]SIr. Osborne. Could you not apply this fund to the credit of 
Gloucester? Couldn't you apply that without this new legislation? 

Col. Newcomer. We could only apply the unexpended balance for 
Gloucester to Gloucester, of course. 

Mr. Osborne. Without this legislation? 



12 ' RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. It should be noted that all of the funds 
appropriated b}- the river and harbor bill are available until ex- 
pended. 

Mr. HuLBERT. This proposed legislation would permit the trans- 
fer of unexpended balances to the credit of Gloucester so that they 
might be expended in the improvement of the Plymouth Eiver or 
harbor. 

Col. Xewcomer. Our attitude toward this is such that we would 
ordinarily use that liberty only in the case of maintenance funds. 
I think it would be very rarely the case that we would transfer funds 
that had been appropriated for improvement. 

Mr. Hulbert. The unexpended balances there, together with that 
$24,000, will go into one general fund, and the engineer could expend 
that with regard to these items in the first group as in his judgment 
seemed proper. 

Col. Newcomer. The procedure would doubtless be this, under 
this provision of the bill, if it should be enacted into laAv : All of the 
sums remaining to the credit of these different places Avould go to 
the credit of the consolidated group and would then have to be re- 
allotted. We would doubtless at once reallot each one of those sums 
back to the item from which it Avas taken, and it would be only in case 
of changing circumstances w^hich would indicate that the transfer 
should be made that the transfer would be made. If this policy 
should be carried out the amounts to be appropriated would be based 
upon itemized statements in the annual estimates for maintenance 
which would give the amounts we expect during the year to apply to 
particular localities. Each one of these items and the explanation of 
it is printed in our annual report. In other words, Gloucester here 
would be reported upon as a separate project, and Beverl}^ would be 
reported upon as a separate project. Each, one would be reported 
upon separately. We would give a statement of the funds allotted 
to them, and of the additional amounts required, but this authority, 
as I have said, is needed to meet situations that we can not anticipate 
in advance. 

Mr. Hulbert. What is the total amount carried in this bill for 
maintenance? Have you a separate statement of that? 

Col. Xewcoaler. I do not have that. 

The CHAiR.ArAN. If Col. NeAvcomer Avill permit the interruption 

Col. XEAVCo:NrER (interposing). Perhaps Mr. Brooker may knoAv 
how it is divided. 

Mr. Bkooker (the clerk). $5,114,000, Avhich is exclusive of the items 
for which appropriations are made for improvement and mainte- 
nance in an undivided sum. 

Col. Newcomer. There are a feAv cases, but only a feAV, where the 
item is for continuing impro\ement and maintenance, AA^here the 
district officer did not submit them in such a AA^ay that Ave could 
separate them here. The total just given is substantially the sum re- 
quired for maintenance. 

Mr. Hi^LBERT. The principal reduction in this bill is from the 
elimination of ncAv projects carried in the bill passed last February. 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dempsev. So long as you are going to keep the accounts sepa- 
rately, so long as you are estimating separately, and so long as the 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 13 

bookkeeping estimates and accounts are kept separately, what is the 
object of combining or grouping them in the bill? 

Col. Newcomer. The reason is this, that as long as each Avork 
stands alone, without any possible assistance from other work, you 
are bound to estimate more liberally in order to meet contingencies 
there. If you do not, you must run the risk of suffering a deteriora- 
tion which is going to embarrass commerce yery seriously. There- 
fore you must estimate rather high. Xow, we expect that the in- 
troduction of this system will permit a reduction in estimates and 
appropriations, because by gettino- eight or ten localities in a group 
like that we would be enabled to meet the increasing needs of one 
project by the diminishing needs of another. Therefore you can 
estimate on a more moderate basis. 

Mr. Dempsey. By making transfers from one fund to another? 

Col. Xewco:n[er. Yes, sir. We have not this year made any reduc- 
tion in the amount estimated for maintenance under the old system, 
but in the future we expect to do so. That was because these items 
were not originally considered by groups in preparing the annual 
estimates or the whole matter was not taken up from that point of 
yiew. This bill is based upon estimates made by the district officers 
imder the old system: but under the new system, if adopted, we 
expect to be more moderate in our estimates for each locality, be- 
cause, as I haye said, you can handle the matter more efficiently under 
this grouping system. 

Mr. Osborne. It seems to me that this would be a practical appli- 
cation of it : It so happens that Mr, Kettner's district and my district 
are in the same engineer district. XoAy, if Mr. Kettner in San Diego 
should haye an unexpended balance from maintenance, the engineer 
of that district, if he should deem it wise to do so, could transfer 
that unexpended balance to the Los Angeles Harbor, could he not? 
He would haye the right to do that, would he not? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes, sir ; with the approval of the Chief of Engi- 
neers and the Secretary of War. The district engineer could not do 
that alone. 

The Chairmax. There is one phase of this matter that it seems to 
me has not been specifically gone into. Xoav, in answer to particu- 
lar questions by Mr. Frear'and Mr. Hulbert— that is to say. to what 
extent are the functions of the committee invaded in fixing the gross 
amount to be appropriated for a group of items for maint'enance — if 
I am correct in my view — and I think I am correct — there is no inva- 
sion here of the functions of the committee. In making up the bill, 
for instance, we come to a group, and we see in the reports of the 
Chief of Engineers that each item in that group is discussed sepa- 
rately. It is reported, we Avill say, as necessary for maintenance and is 
recommended. Xoav, there may be one or more items in that group 
for Avhich no recommendations for maintenance are made. The 
(.'ommittee will take iip each item in the group: there may be four 
items, for one of which there is no recommendation for the a])pro- 
priation of a maintenance fund. 

For instance, the committee will take up item A and decide upon 
the amount there, and they Avould, as a usual thing, take the recom- 
mendation of the engineers. Then they would consider item B, and 
then they would consider in the same way item C. Then, having con- 
sidered those three items, the amount 'appropriated Avould be the 



14 KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

gross amount of appropriation recommended by the committee for 
that group composed of four items. Therefore, the committee would 
have exercised its responsibility in fixing the amount of the appro- 
priation, and the}^ would have gone into each item separately in order 
to arrive at that gross sum. This consolidation only affects the admin- 
istration of the works. When the Chief of Engineers comes to* 
administer them it may well be that, while he may have recom- 
mended $10,000 for item A, sorqe conditions have arisen since his 
report which may show him that $8,000 is sufficient. If so, the $2,000 
saved on item A, with the approval of the Chief of Engineers and 
the Secretary of War, may go to item D, the fourth item for which 
no recommendation was made, if, in the meantime, there seemed to 
be some necessity for it. Therefore, as I stated, the committee still 
preserves its function of making up or reaching its conclusion as to 
the aggregate amount needed, based upon the recommendations of 
the Chief of Engineers as to each separate project. This grouping 
affects only the administration of the work and the expenditure of the 
funds b}'^ the War Department. 

Mr. HuLBERT. You have stated that this grouping principle ap- 
plies only to small items and not to the large projects. If that be 
the case the large projects are placed at a great disadvantage, because 
A^ henever it ma}^ become necessary to secure an allotment of funds 
in order to provide some additional maintenance for a large project, 
you would have to come to Congress and get a direct authorization 
for it, whereas, by grouping certain small projects together, if addi- 
tional mone}^ should be required for any of them during a recess of 
Congress, it could be applied so long as there is a balance. The small 
projects, under this plan, will be in a position at all times to be im- 
proved with any balances on hand from the several projects in the 
group. Avhereas the large projects would have to come to Congress 
and get legislative action, and for that reason this system is unfair 
to the large projects throughout the country. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Is it not a fact that the large projects are subject 
to appropriations made covering over several years, and that it Avould 
be practically impossible to get sufficient money in one Congress to 
complete many of them, whereas the small projects are capable of 
being treated finally by the action of one Congress? In other words, 
(he larger contracts are carried on the basis of continuing contracts, 
looking to each Congress to appropriate sufficient money to do all the 
work that is possible to be done in one year. 

Mr. Kettner. In answer to my friend, Mr. Hulbert, I will state 
that Col. Newcomer has just stated — and I think he made it so plain 
that everybody should understand it — that where they have estimated 
for these small groups the department could make a great saving, 
but foi" the larger ones, the estimates are made in accordance with 
the requirements of such large projects. 

Mr. HuiJiEUT. The principle is the same in either case, is it not? 

Mr. Kettner. No. The department is trying to save all it can, 
and, by giving them authority to transfer these funds in certain 
sections, the estimates Avill be a great deal smaller than they Avould be 
if they were estimated for separately. The large projects, as Mr. 
Costello stated, are carried fi'om year to year. 

Mr. HiLHERT. AVhat is the difference in principle between making 
a specific appro])i'iation to be allotted by the engineers in districts 



I 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 15 

;md making a lump-sum appropriation to be allotted by the engineers 
all over the country ? 

Mr. Kettner. The same difference there is in preparing for one 
small undertaking or several. 

Mr. Treadway. Col. Newcomer, referring to your statement at 
the opening of the hearings, I understood you to say that you re- 
garded this river and harbor work as largely of commercial value, 
and that you do not feel that the Board of Engineers should pass 
judgment^ on military or naval propositions in connections with 
iver and harbor work. Am I correct in that? 

Col. Xewcomee. I think you are referring to the statement I made 
bout the report on the work required for the operation of the fleet 
f defense. We do not, as a rule, in the river and harbor work give 
.luch weight to those other considerations, because the comm.ercial 
considerations are usually the determining ones. In the East Kiver 
the commercial needs appear to be the same as the navy's. For 
instance, the channel between East River and Hell Gate, the demands 
are the same, but we do not, I think, require the same depth through 
Diamond Reef where they ask for 40 feet, and where we report 35 
feet as sufficient for commercial purposes. In this case a certain need 
exists for military purposes, but that is entirely aside from and 
distinct and apart from the need for commercial purposes. I do not 
know that we should include that in the river and harbor bill. We 
did not include it in the case of the Norfolk improvements nor the 
San Diego improvement, because it was not required for commercial 
purposes. That has nothing to do Avith this bill. 

Air. Treadway. Have you in any way arrived at a conclusion con- 
cerning the relative merits or importance of the items consolidated 
in this bill, other than by taking the arbitrary fact that they were 
carried in the last bill? 

Col. Newcomer. We have in each instance some considerations 
that influenced our judgment. 

Mr. Treadway. The bill we have before us now is practically the 
one that passed the House as it was revised by the Senate committee. 

Mr. Newcomer. With a number of eliminations. 

Mr. Treadway. So that really the bill itself has not been passed 
upon by the Board of Engineers from the viewpoint of better pre- 
paredness conditions? 

Col. Newcomer. Of course the Board of Engineers has not consid- 
ered it at all. It has only been considered in the office of the Chief 
of Engineers. We considered there not only items like that of the 
East River Channel, which has been one for both comercial and 
naval purposes, but there are other items of special commercial im- 
portance, such, for instance, as that question of fertilizers at Tampa. 
That is recommended because of the importance of transporting 
fertilizers. Fertilizers are considered to be a matter of special 
importance at this time in connection with the food question, and 
for that reason we included that item. 

There is the case of the Brunswick (Ga.) Harbor. The additional 
depth recommended there did not seem to present a matter of urgent 
necessity, but it was more a question of greater convenience. You 
might say that it ^ras more a question of convenience than of neces- 
sity. In other words, they have to go over the bar on the tides, and 
while they ought not to be subjected to that delay and interference. 



16 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

they can accommodate themselves to that condition. In other words, 
the additional depth is needed there, but it is not considered abso- 
lutely essential at this time. So I would say that in each case there 
is some reason why we thought that an item should be included or 
excluded, as the case might be. That judgment, of course, is based 
upon our present knowledge of the situation, and it is quite possible 
that in some cases, on fuller information, we would reach a different 
conclusion ; but we have done the best we could and we are quite will- 
ing in each case to tell you why we have included an item or elimi- 
nated an item. 

Mr. Treadavay. I did not intend to ask it, but since a^ou have made 
that statement I will ask you why Boston was eliminated ? 

Col. Newcomer. For the reason that the new^ project proposed 
there was one to provide for a greater depth only at the outer en- 
trance, which was rendered advisable on account of wave action. It 
does not giA^e an increased depth to the docks at all, because the inside 
channels Avill remain at 35 feet, but solely for conA'enience in enter- 
ing a port like that it is desirable to have an increased depth oA^er the 
bar outside. It is only a question of providing greater convenience in 
getting in. It is a A^ery desirable matter, but it is not a need of any 
urgent character. It is a case Avhere a fcAV hours' delay AA'ill enable 
them to meet the situation. 

Mr. Treadavay. That is the commercial situation? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Treadavay. You are not referring to the question of getting to 
the naA^y yard? 

Col. Neavcomer. It is the same thing in that respect. We do not 
require any increased depth to the naA^y yard. That depth is 35 feet. 

Mr. Treadavay. There are tAvo or three more questions that I Avould 
like to ask. What is the need in this bill for items for surveys? 

Col. Neavcomer. We did not really pay much attention to the ques- 
tion of surA^eys. That is a matter that Ave did not consider especially 
important from our point of vieAV. There are a great many of those 
items in here that appeal to me as being superfluous. At the same 
time they could be taken up if time permits. I do not see any par- 
ticular objection to them, and the amount, I think, is not great. If 
any locality feels that its commercial needs should be investigated I 
do not think they should be preA^ented from having an iuA^estigation. 

Mr. Treadavay. You assumed that those in the list carried in the 
bill AAere the most important ones for consideration? 

Col. Neavcomer. We eliminated one item from the list. That Avas 
the item relating to Minnesota and North and South Dakota. AAdierein 
an appropriation Avas made for investigating a flood proposition. At 
the present time there is a flood-control act Avhich prescribes the 
method of procedure for the inA^estigation of floods, and it seemed 
to us that it ought to be handled by that method and not at the 
expense of river and harbor funds. 

Mr. Treadavay. In case Avork is temporarily suspended on riA^er 
and harbor projects, in your opinion, AA^iat dej^reciation Avill take 
place in the plants that Avere in operation on such projects? 

Col. Neaa'comer. I think that the principal disadvantage or trouble 
that Avould result from the failure of riA^er and harbor appropria- 
tions Avould not relate so much to the condition of the GoA^ernment's 
plant, but it' Avould be reflected in the condition of the improvements 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 17 

as transportation agencies. In other words, they would not be in a 
condition where it would be possible for them to serve the country's 
needs. 

^Ir. Treadway'. In your opinion, there would not be much actual 
depreciation of the Government's property if the work was sus- 
pended i 

Col. Xewcomer. Xo, sir ; not of the Government's plant. 

Mr. Treadway. Of course, on the other hand, there would be some 
works of improvement left in an unfinished state ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes; there would be. 

Mr. Treadway. But the loss on the actual property of the plant 
would be negligible ? 

Col. Newcomer. So far as the actual property is concerned, the loss 
would probably not be great, because Ave have certain funds on hand 
from which we can provide for the. essential care of the property. 
Of course, you have great big expensive plants that are idle and not 
doing sufficient work to provide any return on the investment, which 
is a matter to be considered. 

Mr. Treadway. Just one more question: What, in your opinion, 
would be the damage to the present established navigation of rivers 
by failing to continue the existing work? 

Col. Newcomer. I think it would be quite considerable. The work 
we are doing is accommodating, in the aggregate, a very large ton- 
nage, and that tonnage, of course, would all be exposed to the diffi- 
culties that would come from lack of maintenance of the channels. 

Mr. Treadway. A maintenance appropriation would practically 
continue the present navigable condition, would it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Treadway. You mean by that : Suppose there is a sand bar 
coming in the river, 3^our idea of maintenance is, if you know that 
sand bar is sure to come, in so many months, your plant is there to 
clear it out? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Treadway. I am not using engineering expressions, of course, 
but that is the thought you had in mind. 

Col. New-comer. Yes. 

Mr. Treadway. And that is what maintenance means — it is to con- 
tinue the existing conditions in the channels ; am I right about that ? 

Col. Newcomer. Exactly. 

Mr. Treadway. So that a maintenance item would practically keep 
navigation conditions as thej" now are, in your opinion? 

Col. Newcomer. Certainly; it would do that. Of course, there 
is also the question, if you decide to give only a sufficient amount to 
cover maintenance and make no provision for continuing imxirove- 
ment work, that there are many cases Avhere Ave have large plants 
invoh'ed which AA'ould be thrown out of occupation, and not onh^ 
Government plants but contractors' plants; and you Avould haA^e 
no progress made in carrying to completion an improvement like 
that of the Ohio, for instance, Avhich involves a total expenditure of 
seventy-five millions. You have already s]:)ent in there, or authorized 
the expenditure of, I think, in the neighborhood of forty millions. 
And if you let that work lie of course the Avork that has been done 
Avill be useful, but the more you do the more useful it becomes; 

GTolO— IT 2 



18 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

because every additional lock and dam that is built brings into use 
just so much more territory which it will serve. 

Mr. Treadway. Has the scarcity and high price of labor been 
given any consideration? Are you likely to be embarrassed by a 
lack of people to work at the various plants? 

Col. Neavcomer. We are likely to be embarrassed by the difficulty 
in getting labor and materials. These estimates are the estimates 
that we made last year, and they have not been increased on account 
of that consideration; but we will undoubtedly be embarrassed in 
carrying out some of these projects because "of those conditions. 
However, we will be able to do considerable work of maintenance 
with this money we expected to use, as far as that is concerned, and 
we probably will be able to take care of the most urgent features of 
the work. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Many of the large projects of the Government for 
the improvement of commerce, or for the benefit of commerce, or im- 
provement of the harbors, are in the nature of continuing contracts. 
A man bids to complete a certain character of improvement which 
might involve work covering a period of five or six j^ears. In the 
event of our not appropriating the money to continue that work 
the contractor, or even the Government itself, might lose the interest 
on the investment in the plant; and in the case of a private con- 
tractor there is a question whether the Government would not be 
liable for such deterioration and loss as the contractor would be 
put to due to the suspension of work of that character. 

Mr. HuLBERT. There are a lot of continuing contracts, but they are 
all carried in the sundry civil bill and do not come in here at all. 

Mr. CosTELLO. I just wanted to Imow, and I am asking the col-onel. 

Col. Newcomer. The contract liabilities of the Government are 
taken care of in the sundr}^ civil bill. Of course there are a great 
many contractors engaged on work, as on the Ohio River, for instance, 
where we do not have a continuing contract in force, who expect to 
continue on that work because the Government has practically obli- 
gated itself to a certain program of procedure there, and they are 
expecting to use their plants in that work under new contracts, as 
the Government provides the appropriations. They would have no 
contract claim, of course. 

Mr. CosTELLO. In your judgment, as an engineer connected with the 
War Department, with many years experience in this particular char- 
acter of work, it would be a mistake for Congress not to pass a rivers 
and harbors bill this year ? 

Col. Newcomer. I certainly do think it would be a mistake for 
Congress not to pass a river and harbor bill this year. And, more- 
over, I think it would be very desirable to provide for a number of 
additional new projects, as far as that is concerned. I do not see why 
the transportation service of the country should be allowed to run 
down at this time when we need the maximum efficiency of every Gov- 
ernment agency. In other words, we have taken a backward step, on 
account of the present emergency, by withdrawing some of these im- 
provements which ought to be included. But we are trying to meet 
the desire of Congress, as Ave understood from the recent action here 
regarding this matter, that you would not take up a general bill, but 
would only take up the more urgent matters. This bill was framed 



BIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 19 

to meet that understanding ; but we think there are other items which 
are exckided that are desirable projects. 

Mr. Frear. About what is the amount of reduction in the bill as 
proposed and the bill as it passed the House at the last session, after 
deducting the Mississippi River item ? 

Col. Newcomer. As I recall, it would be, I think, somewhere be- 
tween six and eight millions. 

Mr. Frear. That is after deducting six millions for the Mississippi 
River item ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; after deducting the six millions for the 
Mississippi River. 

Mr. Gallagher. You are speaking of the bill as it passed the Sen- 
ate now^ ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir ; the Senate bill. 

Mr. Frear. But the Senate has added quite a number of items to 
the bill as it passed the House at the last session. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes ; the Senate has added quite a number of items ; 
but it did not materially change the total, because it took out the 
appropriation for the purchase of the Delaware & Chesapeake Canal 
and put in a small sum for its condemnation. But it did put in some 
additional new projects, and we simply took their bill as a basis of 
consideration for what Ave have here. 

Mr. DuPRE. Before we get to the consideration of particular itemsy 
I would like to make inquiry as to an item not in the bill. Is this bill 
drawn on the theory that the sundry civil bill or some other bill 
emanating from the Appropriations Committee is going to take care 
of the lower Mississippi River improvements ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. The sundry civil bill had an item in 
it, as it went to conference, providing for th^ Mississippi River. 

Mr. DuPRE. Have you any assurance that the House conferees are 
going to abide by the Senate amendment ? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know. I do not understand that the 
conferees have met. But that bill is the place for that, just as Mr. 
Hulbert stated a moment ago, as the work is practically on a con- 
tinuing contract basis. And a Senate amendment providing for it 
on that basis has been added to the sundry civil bill, and that is the 
place for it. 

Mr. Kettner. Are there any items not in the Senate bill now being^ 
provided for in the sundry civil bill, the Army, or the Navy bills ? 

Col. Newcomer. There are only two items I know of — the Sacra- 
mento River and the lower Mississippi. These are being provided 
for in the sundry civil bill and are taken out of 

Mr. Kettner. I know there were some projects provided for or 
suggested to the Naval Committee. Were they taken from this bill ? 

Col. Newcomer. Oh, no; they were not taken from this bill; they 
would remain in this bill. They are being made large enough, as 
recommended by the Navy Department, to facilitate the operation of 
our fleet of defense. Those facts have been reported to Congi-ess ; but 
as to where they should be put, I do not know. 

Mr. Gallagher. What improvements for military operations are 
going to be taken care of in the naval bill ? 

Col. Neavcomer. The East River is in this bill and the improve- 
ment of Norfolk Harbor. 



20 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. Gallagher. Why, in the East River they have plenty of depth 
there 

Col. Newcomer. The depth provided for the East River is the same 
as the depth through Hell Gate. That is 35 feet. And the bill that 
was passed by the House and reported to the Senate had an item for 
the East River. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Did not the recommendation made by the Secretary 
of War and the Secretary of the Navy under that project, as con- 
tained in the last naval appropriation bill, provide for a 40-foot 
channel for naval purposes through Hell Gate ? 

Col. Neavcomer. Ultimately. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is there any reason why the channel for naval pur- 
poses through Hell Gate should be of any less depth than the chan- 
nel over Diamond Reef? 

Col. Newcomer. Of course, that is a question which the naval au- 
thorities have to decide upon, and they have recommended that there 
he provided immediately a 35-foot channel through Hell Gate, and 
ultimately a channel of 40 feet. 

Mr. Hulbert. Will not the same vessels that use that channel going 
in and out of the navy yard have to use this channel, and, therefore, 
if it is necessary to make a 40- foot channel through Diamond Reef 
isn't it equally necessary to make a 40-foot channel through Hell 
Gate? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think it is equally necessary, because I 
think if it Avere the naval authorities would say so. 

Mr. Hulbert. I understood they had said so. 

The Chairman. Noav, gentlemen, Ave Avill proceed Avith the various 
items. 

Colonel, take up the first item, on page 2, among the recommenda- 
tions of the Secretary of War, " Gloucester, Beverly," etc. — a group 
of items in Massachusetts — Avhere a recommendation of $'24,000 for 
maintenance is made. Will 3^ou please explain to the committee that 
grouping and hoAV you arrived at the aggregate estimated for there? 

Col. Neavcomer. These are practically all of the harbors on Massa- 
chusetts Bay — that is, from NeAvburyport, on the Merrimac River, 
to Cape Cod, except Boston Harbor. We thought Boston Harbor 
ought to be handled as a separate item, and all the others Avere in- 
cluded in this one item, and the amount there is the same amount as 
estimated for before. 

Mr. BooHER. The gross amount here is the same as the amount 
estimated for all those items in the other bill? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; it is the same amount as estimated for 
in the annual report for all those works. 

Mr. Frear. For this group $24,000 Avas estimated for the mainte- 
nance of the Mystic and Maiden Rivers, and then there Avas a fur- 
ther sum of $10,000 included in the total, which this item does not 
include? 

Col. Newcomer. Exactly. 

Mr. Hulbert. As I recollect, last February, when you appeared 
before the committee, you stated that $24,000 was the least amount 
you could get along with for the improvement of the Mystic and 
Maiden !Rivers; so that you do not now contemplate spending any 



EIVEK AXD HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 21 

part of that $2tl:,000 item in that first group for the improvement 
of those rivers? 

Col. Xeavcomer. We do not expect to spend it on any of the 
other items; no. sir. 

The Chairihan. Are there any other questions regarding the first 
item ? If not, we will take up the second : 

Stoiiiugtoii and New London Harbors, Conn.; Pawtucket River, II. I., and 
Conn.; and Mystic and Tlianies Rivers, Conn. — for maintenance, $10,000; for 
completing improvement of New London Harbor, $160.000 ; in all, $170,000. 

Mr. Frear. Let me ask Col. Newcomer there. Is that for com- 
mercial needs or for the public defense; or is there any particular 
urgency for that improvement? 

Col. Newcomer. The urgenc}^ there is commercial. That is an 
important harbor, where the State is going to large expense to build 
terminals and where the Government has obligated itself to give 
them this additional depth of water. And we think that ought to be 
continued. 

Mr. Frear. This is a new project, although it was included in the 
last bill? 

Col. Newcomer. It is not a new project; it is an adopted project, 
and this is for the completion of it. 

3.1r. Frear. That is right; I stand corrected. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. 

The Chairman. The next is : 

Duck Harbor, Branford, New Haven, Milford, Bridgeport, Soiithport, Nor- 
walk. Five ^Tile River. Stamford, and Greenwich Harbors. Westport Harbor, 
and Sangatnck River, breakwaters at New Haven, and Honsatonic River, 
Conn. — for maintenance, $71,000. 

Are there any questions on that item? 

!Mr. Frear. In that case, have any specific amounts been set apart 
for these various projects making up the total of $71,000 for the 
group ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Frear. Could you suggest what the items are, in order that we 
may have some intelligent understanding of them? For instance, it 
begins with Duck Island. 

Col. Newcomer. I would have to look into the bill. These are all 
harbors that are grouped along the Connecticut coast, and the largest 
item there 

Mr. Frear. New Haven Harbor is the first item. $14,000. 

Col. Newcomer. $14,000 for that. 

Mr. Frear. Bridgeport? 

Col. Neavcomer. Bridgeport Harbor is $24,000; Norwalk Harbor, 
$8,000. We cut out there the additional improvement of Norwalk 
Harbor, and there is $17,000 for the group that was there before — 
Five Mile Eiyer, Stamford, and Greenwich Harbors, Westport, and 
Saugatuck River — and we have incorporated that group in this larger 
group. 

iNIr. Frear. And also the Housatonic River ? 

Col. Newcomer. The Housatonic River is $8,000. I may say that 
for any one of these cases you will find the amounts for maintenance 
given, item by item, in the Senate bill. We have simply grouped them 
together here. 



22 EIVEE AND HAEBOR APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

Mr. Frear. These are not connected with the national defense ? 

Col. Xewcomer. These are items that are commercial — for main- 
tenance. 

The Chairman. The next item is Connecticut Elver above and 
below Hartford, Conn. — continuing improvement and for mainte- 
nance below Hartford, $70,100. 

Mr. Frear. Eeferring to that item, there has been added to the 
phraseology Conecticut River " above," compared with our former 
bill? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. And I remember that is in relation to another project. 

Col. Newcomer. There is a project above Hartford. and one below. 

Mr. Frear. This is permitting the expenditure of part of this item 
on the project above? 

Col. New-comer. Yes. There is nothing asked for above Hartford, 
and this is now to take care of " below " Hartford. 

Mr. Frear. Is there any commerce above Hartford ? 

Col. Newcomer. Veiy little, and there is very little work up there. 

The Chairman. The next item is, Burlington Harbor, Vt. ; Platts- 
burg and Port Henry Harbors, N. Y. ; and Narrows of Lake Cham- 
plain, N. Y. and Vt., for maintenance, $5,000; for improvement of 
Narrows of Lake Champlain in accordance with the report submitted 
in House Document No. 1387, Sixty-second Congress, third session, 
and subject to the conditions set forth in said document, $300,000; for 
completing improvement of Port Henry Harbor in accordance with 
the report submitted in House Document No. 369, Sixty-fourth Con- 
gress, first session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said 
document,- $71,500 ; in all, $376,500. 

Mr. HuLBERT. I take it that Port Henry improvement is to afford 
a means of taking ore out of the iron mines ? 

Col. Newcomer. It is an iron-ore proposition. 

Mr. HuLBERT. There is an annual shipment there of about a million 
tons. 

Col. Newcomer. It is about a million tons. The purpose of this 
improvement is to make available a sufficient channel through the 
narrows at the end of the barge canal which the State has built and 
which is finished. 

Mr. Hl'lbert. Yes; that is in o]3eration. 

Col. Newcomer. That is in operation, and we have here in the 
narrows a very obstructive bend Avhere we can not take a big boat 
around it. 

Mr. Tread WAY. Is that in north Lake Champlain, or south? 
Col. Newcomer. South. 

The Chairman. The next item is Olcott, Charlotte, Pultneyville, 
Great Sodus Bay, Little Sodus Bay, OsAvego, Cape Vincent, and 
Ogdensburg Harbors, New York; for maintenance, $33,500. 

Mr. Dem^psey. Olcott is in my own district. The piers there are 
out of repair. The tops of the piers are substantially gone, and in 
order to preserve them it is necessary, is it not, to have some work 
done there at once? 

Col. Newcomer. There was no estimate for Olcott Harbor, as I 
recall, for the coming year. I will look that up in a moment. In 
that case the traffic apparently has practically ceased. 



EJVER AND HAEBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 23 

Mr. Dempsey. That is true there is very little traffic there; tut in 
the summer it is used for pleasure purposes and there was until 
recently traffic Avith Toronto. And I understand they propose to put 
on a line of boats again this summer. Now, just to maintain that 
harbor, just to keep the piers so they won't absolutel}^ be ruined, it is 
necessary to have some work done there at once. 

Col. Xewcomp:e. The company which was running that boat agreed 
to maintain the pier and channel as a consideration for the Govern- 
ment doing certain Avork there ; so that we understood the situation 
was adequately taken care of in that way. The report states no 
operations are proposed during the next fiscal year unless there should 
be a revival of traffic, which would require redredging of the channel. 
Should such redredging become necessar3^ funds available are suffi- 
cient for the purpose ; hence no estimate of funds is submitted. 

Mr. Dempsey. What page is that? 

Col. Xewcomee. Fifteen hundred and twelve of the Annual Report 
of the Chief of Engineers. 

Mr. Dempsey. If there is any necessity why could it not be cared 
for by this time? 

Col. Xewcomer. Of course, funds are available and that is one of 
the items. If it is included in this group and work is needed there 
ind funds could be spared, of course it could be paid for from this 
appropriation; there is no question about that. 

^Ir. Dempsey. You say there are funds available ; what funds are 
available? 

Col. Xewcomee. There is a balance remaining unexpended of 
$1,800. 

Mr. Dempsey. That could be used for this work, aside from this 
appropriation ? 

Col. Xeavcomee. Yes, sir. 

The Chaiemax. Might I suggest, Mr. Dempsey, this would illus- 
trate one of the advantages of the group system; because if there is 
anything left over from maintenance projects for which appropria- 
tions have been estimated, then, in the discretion of the Chief of 
Engineers, it would be utilized for this improvement if you can show 
that it is necessary. 

Mr. Dempsey. To whom should I come to see about the use of that 
$1,800 for that immediate necessity? 

Col. Xewcoaeee. Of course, the district officer is the one who han- 
dles that, and he is Maj. Frazier at Buffalo. Of course, it is my desk 
in the Chief of Engineers' office that handles the problem here, but 
we always refer it to the district engineer for report. 

Mr. HuLBEET. Substantially all of this $33,500^ provided for in this 
item Avill be for the improvement of the Great and Little Sodus Bays, 
according to the last bill? 

Col. Xeavcomee. That is right ; yes, sir. There Avas $21,500 for the 
Great Sodus Bay .and $12,000 for the Little Sodus Bay, before. 

The Chaiemax. The next item is Port Chester, Mamaroneck, and 
Echo Bay Harbors, East Chester and Westchester Creeks, and 
Bronx River, X. Y. : Completing improvement of East Chester 
Creek, $11,000. 

Mr. HvLBERT. I Avould like to ask a question there. When Ave 
made up the last bill you stated $26,000 was required for the im- 
proA'ement of Port Chester Harbor? 



24 BIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. And $11,000 for East Chester Creek— making a 
total of $37,000. Do you feel now^ Colonel, that you can eliminate 
the $26,000 item and take care of Port Chester out of the amount 
which Avas provided in the last bill for East Chester Creek alone ? 

Col. Newcomer. We do not expect to provide for any further im- 
provement of Port Chester at this time. This amount here, you see, 
all goes to East Chester Creek, as provided in this item. And there 
was no estimate for maintenance for any one of these works before. 
There was an item for continuing the improvement of Port Chester 
which we thought might be eliminated. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Did you eliminate it because it is a continuing im- 
provement ? 

Col. Newcomer. Because we do not think it is as urgent as the 
other item. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is that the policy which has been pursued in mak- 
ing up all of the items — to eliminate items for continuing improve- 
ments ? 

Col. Newcomer. Only some of the items have been eliminated. 
We have taken out some of the items in order to prune the bill down 
to the items which are the most urgent. We have taken out certain 
items of continuing improvements, as well as certain items of new 
projects. 

Mr. Hulbert. Do you regard the improvement of East Chester 
Creek as of greater importance than continuing the improvement of 
Port Chester Harbor? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The next item is: 

Saugerties, Rondout, PeekskiU, and Tarrytown Harbors, and Wappinger 
Creek, N. Y. : For maintenance, $3,500. 

Are there any questions on that item? 
The next item is: 

New York Harbor. N. Y, : For maintenance, including Ambrose Cliannel,. 
$40,000; for improvement of cliannel between Staten Island and Hoffman and 
Swinburne Islands, in accordance with the report submitted in House Docu- 
ment No. 25, Sixty-fourth Congress, First session, $.50,000 ; in all, $90,000. 

Mr. Hulbert. Colonel, do you regard the improvement of the 
channel betAveen Staten Island and Hoffman and Swinburne Islands 
as more important at this time than the improvement of the Upper 
Bay Anchorage Grounds? 

Col. Newco^ier. This is considered more urgent ; yes, sir : because 
the channel below does not provide a sufficient depth for that boat 
they are going to put in the quarantine service there. 

Mr. Hulbert. You regard the same channel as of more importance 
for improvement than Bay Kidge and Eed Hook Channels? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; for the amount involved. 

Mr. Hulbert. Have you considered the urgency of the Bay Ridge 
and Red Hook Channels in connection with the enormously increased 
shipments of food supplies and other necessities to be sent over to 
the allies? 

Col. Newcomer." Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hulbert. And clo you think the conditions of the Bay Ridge 
and Red Hook Channels, at the present time, are sufficient to meet the 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 25 

present needs of the merchants and their needs in the immediate 
future ? 

CoL Newcomer. Well, we think in that case, as in many other 
cases where items have been omitted, that although the work pro- 
posed before was very desirable work, we do not consider it as of the 
same degree of urgency as are the others. We do not consider, for 
instance, that the work is of the same class as the work to give accesfi 
to the new pier which is now not accessible at all, up in the Hudson 
River. Thev already have prettv good channels at Bay Ridge and 
Red Hook. 

Mr. HuLiiERT. Why have you eliminated the item of $250,000 for 
continuing the improvement of the Harlem River ? 

Col. Newcomer. That was done by Gen. Black personally. I had 
at first included it, nivself, because I was not as familiar as he was 
with the local situation. He said he thought that amount could be 
spared, in view of the amount now on hand, as not being as urgent 
as some of the other items. 

]\Ir. HuLBERT. You are familiar with the fact that we now have in 
the Harlem River a stretch with only a depth of 12 feet, at Macombs 
Dam Bridge? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know of any place in the Harlem River 
where there is only a depth of 12 feet for any distance. Of course, 
there are some places which may show only that depth ; but I do not 
think it is limited to that. 

Mr. HrLBERT. Yes, there is a stretch there with only a depth of 12 
feet, right near the bridge. 

Col. Newcomer. .You mean it has been there for some time ? 

Mr. HuLBERT. Yes. 

Col. Newcomer. And that has never been taken up as an improve- 
ment ? 

Mr. HuLBERT. Of course this river has a commerce of a billion and 
a half dollars per annum, and I was wondering whether they were 
going to suspend operations on a stream of that importance where the 
work under way is to bring the minimum depth up to the average 
depth of the river? 

Col. Newcoimer. You will find there are considerable funds on 
hand for the Harlem River. We had an appropriation of $250,000 
made last year: so that there was available for this year $274,000, and 
there Avas the sum of $231,000 available the 1st of March, I mean, 
unexpended. Of course contracts for much of that amount have 
been approved. The amount appropriated last year has not all been 
placed under contract. But taking into view that situation and fol- 
lowing the general principles in framing this bill, the Chief of Engi- 
neers concluded that that item could well be omitted at this time, or 
rather, could properly be omitted. 

Mr. HuLBERT. I want to call your attention to page 222 of the 
report for 1916 : 

Condition at the end of fiscal year: About 61 per cent of the worlc proposed 
under tlie existing project (which, by the way, was adopted in 1879] lias been 
completed. The work done under all projects has resulted in uiakin.Q- a chan- 
nel 15 feet deep at mean low water and 400 feet wide from the East lUver to 
Putnam Railroad bridge, except at a few points, where the channel is somewhat 
narro\\ed by shoals, and at :Maf'ombs Dam Bridge, where the available depth is 
12 feet in the westerly draw, opening ; the easterly one is not navigable, being 
olisrructed by ledge rock (now in process of removal). 



26 KIVEK AND HAEBOR APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

Xow, is the amount on hand sufficient to continue the removal of 
the rock ledge in that channel? 

Col. Newcomer. It so states on page 223, under " continuing opera- 
tions " : 

Work at Macomb Dam Bridge is now under way and should be completed in 
the spring of 1917. 

In other words, I understand that they will get a channel through 
there ; they will not get all of the rock out. 

Mr. HuLBERT. The folks up there now are complaining of the ob- 
struction, that it is making it difficult for the present commerce, and 
that when the barge canal is put in operation this spring there will 
be a tremendous increase in commerce. 

Col. Newcomer. Of course, the rock will be removed to a certain 
extent. The barge canal is a very different proposition, as you have 
here a tide of between 4 and 5 feet, and, so far as the barge-canal boats 
are concerned, you have a sufficient depth now. 

Mr. HuLBERT. But there are also certain hours of the day when 
they are prevented from opening those bridges. 

Col. Newcomer. That is true. 

Mr. HuLBERT. And that very largely controls the advantages we 
get from the tide. In other words, it makes it necessary to have a 
uniform channel there of 15 feet during all the 24 hours. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions, Mr. Hulbert ? 

Mr. Hulbert. No; that is all. 

The Chairman. The next itejn is: 

Hudson River Channel, New York Harbor, N. Y. : Continuing improvement, 
^$210,500 ; for improvement in accordance with the report submitted in House 
Document No. 1697, Sixty -fourth Congress, second session, $600,000 ; in all, 

^810,500. 

Mr. Hulbert. I assume that is to take care of the condition at the 
Forty-fifth Street piers and also the widening of the river down by 
Canal Street? 

Col. Newcomer. That is right. 

The Chairman. The next item is Black Kock Channel and Tona- 
wanda Harbor, N. Y. The unexpended balances of appropriations 
heretofore made and authorized for this improvement are hereby 
made available for Lake Erie entrance to Black Rock Channel and 
Erie Basin and for widening the channel at the bend. 

Mr. Dempsey. I have quite a little on that, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, Colonel, you know as a fact that the steel mill down there 
below North Tonawanda has been closed for two or three years. II 
had a million-and-a-half to a two-million-dollar business, employed 
a very large number of hands, had a weekly pay roll of, I think, over 
$5,000, but in competition with, for instance, the Lackawanna and 
that new mill farther up, on account of their being able to handle 
ore with boats that drew more water, the mere diiferehce in the han- 
dling of ore with larger boats put that concern out of business, and, 
as I understand it, the benefits from the use of that new ship canal 
are lost. Now, as I understand this item, the department has been 
waiting for the town of Tonawanda to lower the intake pipes. They 
have had an election up there, and they have voted to lower the in- 
take pipes and issue bonds, and that project will be taken care of in 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 27 

the next few weeks. I do not know Avhether they are at work at it 
now, but at any rate they are ready to let the contract. There is 
only $6,000 of this money on hand, "and the project is going to cost 
between two hundred and fifty and three hundred thousand dollars — 
I think $250,000. Now what are we going to do about that; what 
condition are we in? 

Col. Neavcomer. This does not affect that at all. 

Mr. Dempsey. It does affect it in one way, doesn't it? It takes 
awa}^ from the improvement of the channel lower down and puts it 
up toward the upper end, where we do not need it as badly. 

Col. Xewcomer. Oh, no, sir; it does not take away, it simply per- 
mits us to spend as much of this money as we feel we can afford to 
take away for the entrance. That entrance is not properly taken 
care of under the present situation. We expect to take care of the 
situation below with funds on hand, and we have a contract authori- 
zation which will permit us to make contracts. Of course, the money 
will have to be supplied later in the sundry civil bill. This does 
not effect that situation at all. We won't allow this authorization 
to prejudice the other work; the other work is an important work, 
find we expect to go ahead with it as fast as we can, as soon as condi- 
tions permit, which is the lowering of that pipe. 

Mr. Dempsey. Suppose the two cities are ready to let the contract 
for the lowering of those intake pipes and they have the idea that 
that could be combined with the contract for the improvement in 
the lower river with advantage to them and to the Government; in 
other words, that the work of lowering the intake pipes would really 
be a part of the work of deepening the channel, and that any con- 
tractor would take the combined work at a more reasonable figure 
than he would the work separately? Is there any reason why that 
could not be done, why the contracts could not be advertised and let 
simultaneously? Of course, there would be separate contracts with 
the municipalities, but could not the United States Government 
advertise and let its contract at the same time? 

Col. NEwco:\rER. That appeals to me now as a practical proposi- 
tion. There is a provision of law which permits the Government to 
accept funds from a locality to be used in connection with expendi- 
tures to be made by the Government in any given locality, and I 
think this might be combined in that way. Of course, here we are 
faced by the situation that there is a condition which must be ful- 
filled b}^ the locality in order to permit the Government Avork to 
proceed, and I think we might have to submit that to our legal 
advisors as to whether the incorporation of the work in the same con- 
tract with the Government would meet the legal situation. If they 
could do that I think the other features could be arranged. 

Mr. Dempsey. You understand there is a new iron and steel plant 
that has located there just in the last few months; it has just come 
there? 

Col. Newcomer. No ; I was not aware of that. But this would not 
affect that. This is another illustration of the benefits from group- 
ing. In other words, here is this entrance for which we now have 
no separate appropriation, no separate way of taking care of it, and 
yet it would be included in this, because it is really a part of this 
channel. 



28 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. Dempsey. There is not any clonbt about the fact you have a 
contract authorization, so that the work can go on as soon as the tAvo 
municipalities have complied with the condition precedent? 

Col. Newcomer. The only difficulty would be if the work pro- 
ceeded rapidly the contractor might have to wait for his money. 
That, of course, is a disadvantage. 

The Chairman. The next item: 

East River, N. Y. : Continuing improvement in accordance with tlie report 
submitted in House Document No. 188, Sixty-third Congress, first session^ 
$1,250,000: Provided, That a depth of 40 feet is authorized across Diamond 
Reef: Provided further, That the unexpended balance of appropriations here- 
tofore made and authorized for a depth of 35 feet across Diamond Reef are 
hereby made available for a depth of 40 feet": And provided further, That so 
much as may be necessary of this and any other appropriations made herein 
or hereafter for specific portions of New York Harbor and its immediate 
tributaries may be allotted by the Secretary of War for the maintenance of 
these waterways by the collection and removal of drift. 

Mr. HuLBERT. I would like to propound this inquiry: Col. New- 
comer, when the bill which passed the House last February was 
before the Senate Committee on Commerce Gen. Black appeared 
there and was heard on this item and, as I am informed by members 
of that committee, as a result of his testimony this provision was 
incorporated when the bill was reported out by that committee : 

Prodded father. That the Secretary of War may enter into a contract or 
contracts for such materials and work as may be necessary to prosecute the 
said project, to be paid for as appropriations may from time to time be made 
by law, not to exceed in the aggregate $6,500,000, exclusive of the amounts 
herein and heretofore appropriated. 

Can you tell me why that provision was abandoned and that lump- 
sum appropriation of $1,250,000 substituted? 

Col. NEwcoivrER. Subsequent consideration of that matter led to 
the conclusion that the best thing to do immediatel}^ was to under- 
take the work that could be completed most rapidly and afford a 
practicable channel. The "channel now contemplated, for instance, 
over Diamond Reef is only half the full width. The present au- 
thority is for a channel 35 feet deep, but Avhen we get through that 
channel will be from 35 to 40 feet deep. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Of tlie same width ? 

Col. Newcomer. Of the full width at the ends, but there is a cen- 
tral portion of that channel where we can get betAveen 35 and 40 
feet for a width of 400 feet. At the ends it will be 40 feet deep for 
the full width of 1,000 feet. We are not certain about the rock in 
the central part of the channel, because that is 35 feet deep and has 
not been explored so fully. The explorations heretofore have been 
to get a 35 -foot channel. But we can get there a channel of between 
400 and 500 feet wide, without any rock removal, and of a depth 
varying from 35 to 40 feet ; and the idea was to make a contract for 
that part not involving rock removal with the delay that it would 
involve, and by so doing get a very much improved facility over 
wh^t they have now. That would require, in addition to what we 
already have for the item, the sum of $250,000. In other words, if 
you make available the money already appropriated and authorized, 
and we can get $250,000 additional, we can get this channel from 400 
to 1,000 feet wide and increasing the depth materially over what 
they have at the present time, without rock removal. Then, at Hell 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 29 

Gate, instead of providing for the entire widening at that place, 
which it was contemplated before Avould cost, as I recall, about 
$3,600,000, or in that neighborhood, the expenditure of $1,000,000 
will get you a channel Avhich the district officer reports would be, I 
think, 500 feet wide. This amount anticipates the removal of pot 
rock, channel through reef between Halletts Point and Frying Pan 
500 feet wide, and small amount from western end of middle reef. 
That, of course, is a very contracted place — Hell Gate — ^and the for- 
mer estimate had been for a more commodious channel than this. 
But with this million dollars they could provide for getting a 35- 
foot depth there, which is a practicable channel; and we thought 
that a better proposition than to take up now probably a larger work 
T\ hich would extend over a number of years. 

Mr. HuLBEET. This improvement of Hell Gate is connected with 
the national defense more than the commercial requirements. 

Col. Xewcomer. It is part also of the commercial proposition. It 
has been recommended as a commercial proposition. 

Mr. HuLBERT. But is being limited now to meet the needs of the 
national defense? 

Col. Xewcomer. This will provide for the work we can do in the 
shortest length of time, in order to get a practical channel through 
there. That is the idea. 

Mr. HuLBERT. There is a bend in the river at Hell Gate? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes. sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Isn't it a fact that the battle cruisers now under 
construction have a length of over 800 feet? 

Col. Xewcomer. Something like that. 

Mr. Hulbert. And if you only have a channel 35 feet deep and 
J:00 feet wide, will it be possible for those vessels to make the turn 
at that bend? 

Col. Xewcomer. Of course they can make the turn, but they will 
have to wait for a suitable tide. 

Mr. Hulbert. In other woi:ds, after you have made the improve- 
ment you now contemplate, in order to accommodate the largest ves- 
sels that would have to take advantage of that channel, there must 
be the most favorable conditions of the tide? 

Col. Xeavcomer. Yes. I think they would anyhow. 

Mr. Hulbert. At the low stages of the tide would the channel be 
sufficient ? 

Col. Xewcomer. Oh, yes ; the depth of channel would be sufficient. 

]Mr. Hulbert. Haven't these colliers that come in and out of the 
Brooklyn Xavy Yard a draft of 33 feet? 

Col. Xewcomer. I do not know that anv of them have as much as 
33 feet draft. 

Mr. Hulbert. I know some that have. 

Col. Xewcomer. There possibly may be some that have. 

Mr. Hulbert. I know some that have. Assuming those colliers 
have a draft of 33 feet, could they be accommodated in this 500-foot 
channel through Hell Gate except at the very height of the tide? 

Col. Xewcomer. Oh, yes; they could be accommodated on the 
slack of the tide, either high or low. The great trouble at that place 
is the swiftness of the current, and in order to take a large boat 
through safely most of the boats would probably go through only 
on the slack of the tide. 



30 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Of course my information, which I have gotten from 
pilots, is that the boats could not get through there. 

Col. Newcomer. Do you mean your pilots have given you infor- 
mation as to what they could do if they had a 35-foot channel there 
or what they do now ? 

Mr. HuLBERT. They tell me a 500-foot channel would not be suffi- 
cient for the naval vessels. 

Col. Newcomer. We have boats moving in channels of that size. 
We, of course, do not maintain, Mr. Hulbert, that a 500- foot channel 
is an adequate channel there. It is simply the channel that can be 
provided the quickest and get a passage. You can not get through 
there at all now. 

Mr. Hulbert. As a matter of economy, wouldn't it be better to 
undertake to provide the necessary channel in order to get adequate 
accommodations than not to undertake any at all ? 

Col. Newcomer. It did not appeal to us that wa}^ We feel there 
is an emergency that has to be met by an emergency measure. 

Mr. Hulbert. In other words, this is simply now an emergency 
proposition ? 

Col. Newcomer. As far as this particular proposition here is con- 
cerned it is an emergency measure to get the best we can in the- 
quickest time. 

Mr. Hlt^bert. It does not in any sense of the w^ord comply with 
the recommendations by the Secretaries of War and Navy in the last 
appropriation bill for a military .channel through Hell Gate. 

Col. Newcomer. This is the first step for that program in that 
locality. 

Mr. DupRE. This item in the bill as it passed the House proAdded 
for $500,000. I notice it is now increased to $1,250,000. Will you 
kindly explain briefly why that increase is made? 

Col. Newcomer. That was, for one reason — I have just explained 
that to Mr. Hulbert — because subsequent consideration led to the 
conclusion that it would be better not to make a long-time contract 
covering all of the work involved, but to make contracts involving 
only work that could be done most expeditiously so as to get a 
facility through there and afford a passage for the boats. And this 
does that. Of course one thing was to cut out the continuing con- 
tract feature of it. As a matter of fact, a part of this sum possibly 
could be made a continuing contract authorization if you preferred 
to do it, because we could not probably spend the whole million dollars 
in that one year. We could spend a good part of it, but not all. And 
the idea was to provide with cash for the work that could be done 
most promptly to provide the needed facility for getting through. 

Mr. DupRE. Isn't there an enlargement of the project? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. The 40-foot channel at Diamond Reef is 
purely to meet that naval situation. We included it here because it 
was included before in the Senate bill. 

The Chairman. J also understood you to say that the larger sum 
might enable you to effect economies in the making of contracts? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. This sum was made as small as we could 
and still get what we considered a satisfactory or advantageous 
contract. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 31 

Mr. HuLBERT. As I understand it, after the adoption of this 
project, in order to increase the depth to 40 feet, it will necessitate 
the adopting of a new project? 

Col. Newcomer. Forty feet through Hell Gate? 

Mr. HuLBERT. Yes. 

Col. Newcomer. Oh, yes, sir. 

Mr. Htjlbert. What is the use of adopting one project now with 
the object of adopting a greater project later on for a greater 
width and greater depth? 

Col. Newcomer. Of course that can be done when the Navy asks 
for it. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Haven't you deferred entering upon the work of 
Diamond Eeef, which was authorized some time ago, Avaiting for 
an authorization to make this channel 40 feet deep and 1,000 feet 
wide, and wouldn't such an authorization now effect a very sub- 
stantial economy and not necessitate the work being done twice? 

Col. Newcomer. That is true, Mr. Hulbert. 

Mr. Htjlbert. And won't the same necessity for effecting that 
economy apply at Hell Gate as applies at Diamond Reef? In 
other words, won't it be doubling the expense to undertake cutting 
a channel now of 35 feet through Hell Gate and subsequently in- 
creasing it to a channel of 40 feet ? 

Col. Newcomer. Undoubtedly it will increase the expense 

Mr. Hulbert. Wouldn't it be cheaper, in other words, and more 
economical, to adopt a project for 40 feet for the main channel 
through Hell Gate, the same as we have Tit Diamond Eeef ? 

Col. Newcomer. Under normal conditions it would be. 

The Chairman. Keyport and Shoal Harbors, Woodbridge, 
Cheesequake, Matawan, and Compton Creeks, Elizabeth, Raritan, 
South, and Shrewsbury Rivers, and Raritan Bay, N. J. — for main- 
tenance, $58,000. Are there any questions regarding this item, Cold 
Spring and Absecon Inlets, Absecon and Tuckerton Creeks, and 
Toms River, N. J.: For maintenance, $35,000? 

Mr. Frear. Of course, Colonel, that raises the very suggestion 
which I made a while ago of connecting some of the items in the 
last group. Cold Spring Inlet has had pretty large appropriations. 
It is what has been termed by some people on the floor as a real es- 
tate project, and is one where a Cape May company gave a million 
dollars. That was not in the bill before. But we had $60,000. I 
think, in 1916— July 1, $20,000, and July 27, $40,000— $60,000 for 
Cold Spring. The same thing is practically true of Toms River. It 
is a place provided to help the men down there with private yachts ; 
that is, the engineer's report states that. 

Now, how can these items be questioned over here or on the floor 
when they are grouped together in this way ? 

Col. Newcomer. Of course, you have the information about them 
in the annual report. 

. Mr. Frear. But now the engineers will make whatever allot- 
ment they choose; $60,000 was given last year to Cold Spring Har- 
bor, and now any portion can be allotted under this, notwithstand- 
ing it may be the impression of some of us that it is not a worthy 
project. 

Absecon was given the last time $45,000, as I recollect, and now I 
see $30,000. 



32 KIVEB AND HAKBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Forty thousand. It was reduced to $30,000 in the 
Senate. 

Col. Neavcomer. What we estimate is $30,000 for Absecon Inlet and 
$5,000 for Tuckerton Creek. Those are the only ones requiring addi- 
tional funds for maintenance. Wq simply grouped those because 
those are improvements on the coast of New Jersey Avhich would 
naturally go into one group. 

Mr. HuLBERT. This gets back to the proposition that if a majority 
of the members of this committee were opposed to any appropriation 
whatever for the maintenance of Cold Spring Inlet, but nothing was 
said about it in the committee because at the time the appropriation 
was considered it was expected the money would be used for Absecon 
Inlet and Toms River, and you found, as a matter of fact, you could 
get along with $20,000 on those two projects and had $15,000 left 
over, then the committee wculcl not be able to exercise any supervi- 
sion over that appropriation or allotment of that appropriation, or 
any part of it, to Cold Spring? 

Col. Newcomer. I Avould say to simply cut out Cold Spring. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Strike it out here? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes; strike it out. 

Mr. Costello. As a matter of fact, Absecon Inlet is a channel 
there from the ocean into Reeds Bay, which is kept open by a Gov- 
ernment plant which costs practically this amount of money to main- 
tain and operate for a fiscal year. We gave $J:5,000 last year and 
practically $45,000 was the appropriation before that. It is a way 
from the ocean in to Roods Bay back of Atlantic City, where the 
fishermen and yachtsmen who go in from the ocean use it as a rendez- 
vous, and that is practically what it amounts to. 

Col. Newcomer. AYe have a demand for it particularly at this time 
because it provides a place of safety for so many sailing and patrol 
boats, and in addition, with reference to this project, the Govern- 
ment adopted the program of opening that inlet and maintaining 
it for a period of five years, with the idea of determining, at the end 
of the five years, whether the improvement should be continued. 

Mr. Costello. I do not know Avhether you are acquainted with the 
matter I am going to speak of ; but when the Atlantic Squadron held 
its practice test last year they did it in the neighborhood of Cold 
Spring Inlet. The inlet and back bay form a safe harbor, and they 
established their base there for the submarines and torpedo boats 
and torpedo destroyers, the larger battleships and cruisers lying out 
in the ocean. And I am credibly informed that the United States 
Government has contracted to spend a very large sum of money 
for the purpose of purchasing ground, if they have not already done 
so, for an aviation field here and also for a place where they are go- 
ing to build vast storage plants for gasoline. So that with these 
features. Cold Spring Inlet is not such a project that, if there was 
any money provided for it in here, would require condemnation. M 

Mr. Fkear. The channel is about 200 feet wide and has an average W 
depth of 18 feet, so that it could not accommodate the large vessels. 

The Chairman. Just to correct Mr. Hulbert — he did not intend to 
say so, but he included Toms River as one of the projects for which 
an estimate had been given. There is no estimate for Toms River, 
but you had in mind Tuckerton Creek? 

Mr. Hulbert. Toms River is included in the group. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 33 

The Chairman. Yes; but no estimate is made for it. 

Mr. HuLBERT. It had an appropriation in the last bill. 

The Chair^ian. No; no estimate was made for Toms River. Of 
course, when we come to considered these items 

Mr. Frear. I am not criticizing that, except to raise this question 
in reoard to grouping. That is my purpose. 

The CHAiR:\rAN. The next item: Cooper, Salem, Cohansey, and 
Maurice Rivers, Woodbury. Mantua, Raccoon, Oldmans, and Allo- 
way Cl'eeks. Xew Jersey: For maintenance, $23,000; continuing im- 
provement and for maintenance of Maurice River, $25,000; in all, 
$48,000. 

^Ir. Frear. AVhat is the particular purpose of that last item. 
Colonel ? 

Col. Xewcomer. That is one of those streams of the DelaAvare 
River or tributary to the Delaware River where they have an agri- 
cultural community with very poor transportation facilities aside 
from tl^e water, and it is very desirable to give them improved facil- 
ities. It is a case where the improvement has been under way, and 
they need some work in order to give them an effet^tive outlet. 

Mr, Frear. Is it considered important? 

Col. Xewcomer. It is; yes, sir. Because most of those streams 
along there have been improved and it is only a question of mainte- 
nance. This one is really a project adopted a few 3^ears ago, and 
the work of providing a channel is still in progress. 

Mr. Frear. That is all to be expended for the Maurice River, that 
$25,000? 

Col. Newcomer. $25,000 goes to the Maurice River. 

The Chairman. Pittsburg Harbor, Pa. : For maintenance, $5,000. 

For Schuylkill River, Pa.: For improvement in accordance with 
the report submitted in House Document No. 1270, Sixty-fourth 
CcnaTess, first session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said 
document, $300,000. 

Mr. Frear. I wonder if Mr. Costello can tell us anything about 
that. 

Mr. CosTELLO. ^Xe had this thrashed out pretty thoroughly at the 
last session. 

The Chairman. Perhaps you would like to hear from Col. New- 
comer on that? 

^h\ Frear. Yes: there was some question raised about it. 

Mr. Costello. AVe decided that it was the duty of the Govern- 
ment, as about one-third of the value of the shipping in Philadel- 
phia was on this river. And this, I might say, was the first money 
I think the Government has every expended on it. The additional 
depth is made necessary by the additional draft of the tankers that 
bring the oil from Texas and Mexico, and down around there. ^ 

Col. Newcomer. There are three main items in favor of this im- 
provement. One is to give an increased depth to the navy yard 
and the others are the big grain elevators and then the oil. Those 
are the three elements that are really of special importance. 

Mr. Hiilbert. I do not think anybody who has ever seen it can 
doubt the necessity of the improvement. 

Mr. Frear. What is your view as to the desirability for the Gov- 
ernment or the city of Philadelphia undertaking the improvement ? 

DT.jlO-lT :'. 



34 EIVER AND HARBOE APPROPEIATION BILL. 

Col. i^EwcoMER. I consider this would clearly come under the 
policy of the Government spending money on an improvement of 
that kind. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the condition? 

Col. Newcomer. The interest there is a very general one. The 
community has contributed very substantially' and will contribute 

for this improvement by reason of the building of bulkheads 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the condition attached? 
Col. Newcomer. There are the bulkheads. 

Mr. CosTELLO. The city government has spent about $15,000,000 
bulkheading in order to keep the waste land from washing into the 
river. 

The Chairman. And by dredging up to the bulkheads ? 
Col. Newcomer. And by dredging up to the bulkheads. 
The Chairman. Delaware River, Pa., N. J., and Del. : Continu- 
ing improvement and for maintenance from Allegheny Avenue, 
Philadelphia, to the sea, $1,870,000; for maintenance of improve- 
ment from Allegheny Avenue, Philadelphia, to Lalor Street, Tren- 
ton, $40,000 in all, '$1,910,000. 

Mr. BooHER. That is not as much as it was in the bill last year. 
Col. Newcomer. It is the same as in the bill before, Avith the ex- 
ception of the item of $90,000, which has been cut out because other 
provision has been made for the work at Trenton. 

The Chairman. The item above Lalor Street in the last bill has 
been omitted. Why was that cut out ? 

Col. Newcomer. Because we made other provision for that work. 
Mr. Frear. What provision ? 

Col. Newcomer. We made an allotment from the lump sum appro- 
priation of 1915. We found this work was requiring more money 
than we anticipated. We found rock removal Avhich was not expected. 
In fact, the department had reported the amount appropriated was 
sufficient, but in encountering this rock we could not do it, and then 
we put in an additional estimate for $90,000 last year. But as that 
work ought to go ahead without waiting the action of Congress, 
on account of the terminal work the city of Trenton is engaging in 
there, and in order to give access for the boats that had made con- 
tracts for service there, it was concluded we ought to allot from the 
remaining balance of the lump-sum appropriation to take care of 
this work. 

Mr. Frear. From what appropriation was that allotment made? 
Col. Newcomer. The $25,000,000 appropriation of 1915. 
Mr. Frear. Is that still held by the Army Engineers to allot? 
Col. Newcomer. There is a balance still remaining. 
Mr. Frear. And that is used for any emergency you consider re- 
quires it? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. What is the immediate purpose of making this im- 
provement up there? This is only a mile in length, as I remember, 
and very expensive — something like several dollars a square yard for 
excavation ; that is, it is blasting rock. 

Col. Neavcoinier. I do not knoAv the cost in that unit, but it is quite 
expensive work. The city there, you knoAv, has engaged in quite an 
extensive terminal development. 



' RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 35 

Mr. Fkear. That is, they bought the frontage and agreed to put up 
the wharves? 

Col. NEAvco^fER. And they have projected in there and are building 
wharves and slips, etc. And, as I understand, they have made 
contracts with navigation companies for boat service. And not only 
is the city doing that, but also the American Bridge Co., I think, or 
one of the subsidiaries of the Steel Corporation, has a plant there 
where they are building a great many steel barges, and they are given 
access to this same channel. 

Mr. Frear. AVhat is the estimated cost to the Government for 
making the extension above that street? 

Col. Xewcomer. I really do not recall. I think it was estimated 
at something over $140,000, or something like that; but it has been 
increased by at least GO or 70 per cent. 

Mr. Frear. This does not cover all the deficit or all that will be 
necessary to complete it? 

Col. Xewcomer. This item of $90,000 was the amount estimated jto' 
complete it, and we have now made provision for its completion by 
another arrangement, out of this other fund, so that we do not expect, 
to ask foi' an}^ more money for that work. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Have you any idea what amount the corporation is 
spending there? 

Col. Xewcomer. I do not recall. 

Mr. CosTELLO. I knoAv there is quite a lot of activity. 

Col. Xewcomer. I do not recall. It is quite a large expenditure, 
however. 

The Chairman. They have spent a large sum, and also the in- 
dustrial plant there of the American Bridge Co., I think, recently 
completed or in process of construction ? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes. 

The Chairman. The next item is Wilmington Harbor. Del. : For 
maintenance, $50,000. 

Mr. Frear. That brings up the same point. As I remember, they 
have never made the contribution which they guaranteed for the 
Wilmington Harbor. This is on the Christiana River, and there was 
a condition precedent that they were to make a contribution up there. 
They have never made it, as I understand. 

Col. Xeavcomer. I really do not recall. I think there was some- 
tliing of that kind, but that does not involve this work here. This 
is providing for maintenance. 

ACr. Frear. They were to put that in for maintenance. 

Col. Xewcomer. I would have to refresh my memory on that. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Page 393 : 

By an act of the Delaware State Legislature, passed March 9, 1901, the city 
of Wilmington was authorized to contribute toward the improvement of Wil- 
mington Harbor to the amount of 10 per cent of the United States Govern- 
ment appropriation to an aggregate not exceeding $60,000. To the close of the 
fiscal year the city of Wilmington has contributed $30,817.11, including interest 
on the contribution. 

Col. Xewcomer. They have made some additional — I do not under- 
stand that was a condition imposed by Congress; it was a voluntarily 
assumed condition of local cooperation. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Of course, as we read this article here, the legisla- 
ture of that State permitted them to do it, and there is not any 



36 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. " 

question, of course, but what they were compelled to provide the 
legislation or they would not have clone it. 

Mr. Frear. They have not contributed the balance of $30,000? 

Col. Newcomer. Not yet. As' I understand, they have contributed 
recently — within the last six months — some additional amount; I 
have forgotten Avhat it is. 

Mr. Frear. How could they be compelled to make up their con- 
tribution ? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think it is a condition that has ever been 
imposed by Congress, Mr. Frear. I think it is a condition, volun- 
tarily assumed. 

Mr. Frear. It is a matter of record the}^ made an offer, provided 
the Government would go on with the improvement. That is my 
recollection now. And they have given $30,000, in round numbers, 
and I thought you made the statement, when the bill was last consid- 
ered, that they have not contributed the balance. 

•Col. Newcomer. They have not contributed all the sum authorized 
by the State to be contributed. I do not know that there is any 
obligation resting upon them, so far as any legal requirement is 
concerned. 

Mr. Frear. Where Avould we find that ? 

Col. Newcomer. That is in the project document. 

Mr. CosTELLO. This is for maintaining the vvork already completed 
by the Government? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CosTELLO. As I understand the proposition, the city of Wil- 
mington was to contribute a certain amount of work, if the Govern- 
ment would go on with this work. This $50,000 is simply for the 
maintenance of that work which the Government has alreadv com- 
pleted ? 

Col. Newxomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CosTELLO. That is the idea. 

The Chairman. If there is no further discussion of Wilmington 
Harbor, we will take up the next item. Appoquinimink, Smyrna, 
Leipsic, Little, St. Jones, Murderkill, Mispillion, and Broadkill 
Kivers, Del. : For maintenance, $30,000. 

Mr. Frear. Let mo suggest, Mr. Chairman, the same objection ex- 
ists to some of these that existed to some of the others. I do not care 
to make a question of it at this time. 

The Chairman. Most, if not all, of these have been grouped here- 
tofore. 

Mr. Hulbert. I understand this amount will be applied to the 
Appoquinimink, Smyrna, Mispillion, and Broadkill Rivers? 

Col. Newcomer. Practically; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I think those are about the only ones for which 
estimates were made- 
Col. Newcomer. Ten thousand for the Broadkill. 

The Chairman. The next item: 

Government iron pier in Delaware Bay near Lewes, Delaware: For niainten- 
juice and rej)air in j'ccordanr'e with the rei)ort submitted in House Document 
Numbered Ten hundred and fifty-nine. Sixtj-foui-th Congress, first session, 

$68,000. 

Mr. Hulbert. Colonel, what is the immediate necessity of that im- 
provement ? 



I 



KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATIOX BILL. 37 

Col. Xeavcomer. This pier is important at this time on account of 
the fact that Ave have so many of these patrol boats, torpedo boats, 
and other small boats which have now no good landing at Lewes. 
This, of course, is the Delaware Breakwater, where they are apt to 
collect in considerable numbers. 

Mr. Frear. There is no commerce there, of course ? 

C"ol. Newcomer. Tliere is no commerce there. Tlie act of 1916 
adopted the project for the reconstruction of this pier, or, rather 
its repair. It is not a reconstruction; it is taking off the planking 
and wooden beams and ]:)utting on a steel or concrete superstructure. 
Congress appropriated $10,000 for that, and this is the balance re- 
quired. 

Mr. P'rear. Does this complete the work on the pier ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. My recollection of it at that time is that it was 
not considered very important, but I understand from your state- 
ment that it is considered important at this particular time. 

Col. Newcomer. It A^as of a rather questionable character, so far 
as ri\er and harbor work was concerned, because it is used, you 
understand, by the Treasury Department — the Quarantine Service, 
the Lighthouse Service, and the Coast Guard. So that it is im- 
portant for the Government service; but a question came up as to 
whether river arid harbor funds ought to supply it or the Treasury 
Department funds ought to supply it. 

^[r. Kennedy. I think you are right about that. 

Col. Newcomer. But in spite of that Congress adopted it as a river 
and harbor project, and, of course, the other is an urgency project 
for these other boats. 

The Chairman. The next item : 

Waterway between Relioboth Bay and Delaware Bay, Delaware : CJontimilng 
improvement and maintenance. $50,000. 

Mr. Frear. What is the importance of proceeding with that at 
this time. Colonel? 

Col. Newcomer. That is a Avaterway which has been under con- 
struction for several years, along the coast down there below Lewes, and 
this appropriation is expected to give them an outlet. I do not think 
it will quite complete it, but it will at least cut through and give 
them an outlet for service. Considerable work has already been done. 

Mr. Frear. It is a project for commerce? 

Col. Newcomer. There is no through waterway there, and this is 
to give them a through waterway. 

Mr. CosTELLO. How much more mone}^ will it require ? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not recall ; it is not very much. 

^Ir. CosTELLO. This is up the Chincoteague Bay, is it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hulbert. Is this a canal ? 

Col. Newcomer. It is a canal; yes — that is, partly a canal and 
partlj" waterways deepened. 

Mr. Frear. How much is involved in that? You have not the 
amount stated there. How much is involved in this project? 

Col. Newcomer. The commerce involved ? 

Mr. Frear. No ; the cost of the improvement. 



SS RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The Chairmax. You mean the balance necessary after appropri- 
ating this $50,000? 

Mr. Frear. Yes. 

The Chairman. It would be substantially $65,000. 

Mr. Frear. Besides this? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Frear. That will finish it? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Frear. To what depth is that ; 5 feet ? 

The Chair3ian. I think it is. 

Mr. Frear. Do you think, Colonel, that is of any benefit commer- 
cially — a 5-foot channel there? 

Col. Newcomer. I think it is for local service where you are not 
involving the transportation of large tonnages, but where you are 
transporting farm produce and things like that, that a 5-foot water- 
wa}^ can render very efficient service. Of course, it is not a useful 
avenue of trade for large tonnages. 

Mr. FitEAR. It is local rather than national ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes; in a way; but it affords an outleut. Every 
transportation system, of course, reaches out to localities and gets 
elements which are involved like this. It is not a part, you might 
say, of a trunk line, but is a feeder. 

Mr. Frear. A cost of $56,000 is estimated, I understand ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; with 5 feet as the project depth. 

Mr. CosTELLO. The intent here was to furnish an outlet for that 
interior section of Delaware that lacks railroad facilities. There is a 
large farming section there that raises vast quantities of vegetables 
and things of that kind and where there are a great many fishermen. 
This means allowing them to get to the markets of Philadelphia and 
Camden, and through the Delaware River and Raritan Canal to New 
York ; and it was practically for the purpose of relieving that great 
section there which did not have any means of transportation. 

Col. Newcomer. That is right. There are some waterways along 
that coast that are cut off from the ocean ; although there are inlets, 
•they are not navigable, and there are a great many fishermen and 
others in there who have no outlet. 

The Chair:man. This matter has been before the committee a num- 
ber of times, and my recollection coincides with that of Mr. Costello. 
In the first place, they are without rail transportation, and the only 
method of transportation is by water. There is an agricultural and 
fishing section in there, and this would afford them an outlet which 
they do not now possess. 

Mr. Frear. It is a rather expensive project, however. 

The Chairman. " Waterway from Chincoteague Bay, Va., to 
Delaware Bay at or near Lewes, Del. : For maintenance, $1,000.'- 

The next item is im])roving inland waterway from Delaware River 
to Chesapeake Bay, Del. and Md.. in accordance Avith the project 
recommended by the Chief of Engineers in paragraph 3 of his report 
dated August 9. 1913, as published in House Document No. 196, 
Sixty-third Congress, first session. The Secretary of War is hereby 
authorized to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the existing 
Chesapeake & Delaware Canal and all the property, rights of prop- 
erty, franchises, and appurtenances used or acquired for use in con- 
nection therewith or api:>ertaining thereto: and he, is further author- 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATIOX BILL. 39 

izecl, if in his judgment the price is reasonable and satisfactory, to 
make a contract for tlie purchase of the same, subject to future ratifi- 
cation and appropriation by Congress. In the event of the inability 
of the Secretary of AVar to make a satisfactory contract for the vol- 
untary purchase of said canal and its appurtenances, he is hereby 
authorized and directed, through the Attorney (xeneral, to institute 
and to carry to completion proceedings for the condemnation of the 
said canal and its appurtenances, the acceptance of the award in said 
proceedings to be subject to the future ratification and appropriation 
by Congress. Such condemnation proceedings shall be instituted and 
conducted in, and jurisdiction of said proceedings is hereby given to, 
the District Court of the United States for the District of Delaware, 
substantially as provided in "An act to authorize condemnation of 
land for sites for public buildings, and for other purposes," approved 
August 1, 1888, and the sum of $5,000 is hereby appropriated to pay 
the necessary costs thereof and expenses in connection therewith. 

Mr. Kexnedy. What depth is contemplated in that Document 196. 
Sixty-third Congress? 

Col. Xeavco^eer. Twelve feet. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does the War Department feel that is important, 
from a military standpoint — a depth of 12 feet? 

Col. Xewcomer. It is not, of course, at all important for the move- 
ment of vessels of defense; that is, the naval vessels, for instance. 
The XaA'y Department regards nothing less than 16 feet as of any 
especial value for their purposes — the movement of submarines, naval 
boats, and things of that kind. The commercial importance of this 
canal betweeh the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River is more in 
this case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, I understand, this involves more the com- 
mercial proposition? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes. In other words, that may be important for 
the movement of troops, and things like that, from the transportation 
side : but it is the transportation side and not strictly the defense. 

Mr. Frear. In the last bill that went through the House we changed 
the policy entirely. That made an appropriation of $1,300,000 for 
this project. It was opposed by some of us on the floor. AAlien it 
reached the Senate they struck that out and put in something along 
the lines of what Ave have in this bill. Now, this authorizes the Sec- 
retary of War to enter into negotiations, and so on, and he is to esti- 
mate the value of the franchises and appurtenances to be used in con- 
nection therewith and make a contract if in his judgment it is 
thought best to do so: otherAvise, condemnation proceedings are to 
be begim in the district of Delaware: that is, it is closest to this 
locality. 

I want to ask. Colonel, if you know what was the reason for sub- 
stituting this procedure? 

Col. Neavcomer. Because of the impossibility of ascertaining what 
that waterway could be bought for. In other w^ords, there are certain 
private rights there that haA^e to be quieted in order for the public 
to take charge of it, and there Avas no Avay, apparently, of arriA'ing at 
any estimate that could be supported by evidence as to Avhat we could 
get the AvaterAvay for. Different amounts haA^e been recommended at 
different times as suitable amounts to be paid. The amount put in 
the House bill — I do not Iniow on what it was based. I am sure : I 



40 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

do not remember seeing any estimate of that particular amount. It 
possibly was the idea that an offer of that amount might be accepted ; 
but this seemed to the War Department the best method of pro- 
cedure ; in other words, to actually get at the work — to get authority 
for negotiation or condemnation as the case might be — because it 
looks as though the condemnation would be required — would put 
the proposition in the most forward state. 

Mr. Frear. Did the War Department or the Board of Engineers 
draw this provision? 

Col. Newcomer. No. I think this was prepared in the Committee 
of Commerce of the Senate. But, so far as the War Department is 
concerned, it is quite satisfactory to it as a means of attacking the 
problem. 

Mr. Frear. What could be the franchise value of a canal like that, 
where the stock is worthless and the bonds were only worth 50 cents 
on the dollar until this proposed purchase was introduced? 

Col. New-comer. They are paying interest on the bonds. 

Mr. Frear. They may be now. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes; they are paying a certain interest on the 
bonds. 

Mr. Frear. But that is at the expense of allowing the property to 
depreciate. 

Mr. Dempset. That does not mean what you suggest at all, Mr. 
Frear, I do not think. This is an authorization to purchase all the 
property, rights of property, and franchise. " Franchise " means 
what they have, whether it is of Value or not. It may not have value, 
and yet, if you are going to purchase a piece of propert3^ you should 
be sure to get all there is. 

Mr. Frear. I was wondering what value could be fixed on a fran- 
chise if the stock is Avorthless. 

Mr. Dempsey. I do not think it has that meaning at all. 

Mr. CosTELLO. When the matter was up for consideration at the 
last Congress many of us held this procedure now in this bill was the 
proper method. Others thought there ought to be an appropriation, 
and w^e did appropriate $1,300,000, which, in the minds of many 
people, would not purchase that property. 

Mr. Savitzer. If I recollect correctly, this is what I was champion- 
ing all the way through ; that is, this sort of procedure rather than an 
appropriation of a million and a half or two million dollars. 

The Chairman. Yes ; I recollect that. 

Mr. CosTELLO. I believed this was the proper method. I still be- 
lieve it. The only way we will ever be able to determine the real 
value of that canal will be by condemnation. I do not think the Sec- 
retary of War will succeed in naming a price that will be accepted, 
and if we can proceed by calling witnesses to testify as to the value 
we will be able to determine pretty closely what the value will be. 

Mr. Dempsef. My observation as a lawyer has been that you have 
to pay about four times the price in a condemnation proceeding at 
which a piece of property could be bought at private sale. I repre- 
sented a railroad company and I never in my life found a case where 
Ave could not buy a piece'^of property very much cheaper by private 
purchase than Avhen Ave had to acquire it by condemnation. And I 
do not believe you Avould find a hiAAyer of any experience who Avould 
not tell you the same thing. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 41 

Mr. Fre;ar. Mr. Dempsey's remark brings up tliat question I pre- 
sented to the Colonel : Why are these proceedings brought in the 
State of Delaware before this particular court? 

Mr. Dempsey. The}^ have to; they only have jurisdiction. You 
can not confer jurisdiction on any court, anywhere. 

Mr. Frear. I do not think so. I think they have an absohite con- 
stitutional right there. 

Mr. De:\epsey. Yes; but part of this is in the State of Dehnvare. 

Mr. Frear. That is another matter. It depends on the phice where 
it is located, of course. 

The Chairman. I think the proposition of hiw Mr. Dempsey is 
expressing is this : That where property is situated in two States, we 
can confer jurisdiction on either one or the other. 

Mr. Frear. Of course. 

The Chairman. As to this other proposition, that we could not 
confer jurisdiction where none of the property existed, I think it is 
probably well taken. 

Mr. Frear. I should think, if you are going to put this proposition 
through, if you will pardon my statement, that the provision as 
drawn is the proper one. The only other thing you could do would 
be to put in an amount which would not be exceeded in the negotia- 
tions; but you understand when you place in an amount you give 
notice to the other side you are willing to pay that amount anyway, 
and there is no reason in the world why we should not trust the 
Secretary of Wav in a matter of that kind. 

The Chairman. When the report comes in, we can consider it. 

Mr.' Frear. What is the present depth ? 

Col. Xewcomer. The present depth is 9 feet. 

Mr. Frear. This would limit it to commercial purposes ? 

The Chairman. It does not mean to limit it to commercial pur- 
poses, because the report Avhich has been submitted also sets forth its 
value for military purposes. 

Mr. Frear. What other purposes could it be used for? 

Col. Xewcomer. Of course, it would have a value for the move- 
ment of troops and supplies. 

Mr. Frear. What troops could be moved, and from where, by 
means of this canal ? 

Col. Xewcomer. You have here quite a complex situation for the 
defense of Philadelphia, for instance, Baltimore, and Washington. 
You have diiferent avenues of approach from which the enemy 
might attack — diiferent places where they might make a lodgment — 
and you ought to have a very effective means for transferring your 
troops, munitions, and all supplies, which might tax a railroad, in 
connection with all of its other work, beyond due bounds. So that 
a waterAvay like this affords a connection between two important 
bodies of w^ater, which of course have an outside route, but it is 
very much exposed and longer, and a short route would be a very 
useful element in the defense of the coast. 

Mr. Frear. Do you believe, with two of the greatest trunk lines in 
the country between Washington and Philedalphia, able to send a 
hundred trains a day, if necessary, with troops, that this canal, which 
can only be used at the rate of 4 miles per hour under the present 
regulations, could be used for the transportation of troops? 

Col. Xewcomer. Surelv it could be. 



42 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. Frear. Do you think it would be? Do you think it worth 
while to make this large appropriation, which, I understand, will 
amount to about $12,000,000, for that as an incident ? 

Col. Newcomer. Certainly, as one of the benefits. I think the 
movements of troops w^ould probably not be as much as the move- 
ment of supplies. They are bulky and probably would require a 
considerable tonnage to handle them. Troops might be moved, of 
course — I do not know^ whether you heard Gen. Black, who testified 
before this committee, say that the Pennsylvania Railroad, which is 
one of the great trunk lines involved in this situation and also in- 
volved in the situation between Philadelphia and New York, favored 
a canal across New Jersey, because of the fact that they find them- 
selves burdened with an amount of traffic ihat they simply can not 
accommodate effectively, and it wants relief. 

Mr. Frear. You mean at the present time ? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes; at the present time. 

Mr. Frear. At the present time all the traffic involved only 
amounts to about a million tons, doesn't it? 

Col. Newcomer. Which canal are you talking about? I am talk- 
ing now^ about the proposed canal between the Delaware River and 
New York Harbor, that goes through New Jersey, where we have 
quite a large number of trunk lines involved. I was just simply 
illustrating the fact that although we have rail facilities, those rail 
facilities are taxed to their utmost to handle the normal movement 
of cars. 

Mr. Kennedy. The present CElnal is not being used to capacity? 

Col. Newcomer. Probably not. 

Mr. HuLBERT. You have already given that matter consideration, 
haven't you? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. And in the construction of that canal j^ou contem- 
plate some cooperation on the part of the States of New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania, don't you? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. I think the Chief of Engineers recom- 
mended cooperation beyond a certain limit ; in other words, that a 
12-foot project should be put through there at national expense and 
similar in type to .the barge canal. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is not the State of New Jersey giving the right of 
way now? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. I thought you meant toward the improve- 
ment. 

Mr. Hulbert. Now, Avhy should a right of way from the State of 
New Jersey have been requested in the one instance and the Govern- 
ment purchase the right of way across the States of Delaware and ' 
Maryland in the other instance? 

Col. Newcomer. Iri New Jersey it is simply the right of way with- 
out any actual work of improA^ement. Here it is ouying an improve- 
ment in addition to right of way. 

Mr. Hulbert. Doesn't the same principle cover some part of the 
existing canal across there? 

Col. Newcomer. Oh, no ; it is entirely different. ; 

. Mr. Kettner. Mr. Chairman, the colonel just made the state- * 
ment that in the one case there was a giving of the right of way, 
and in the other case you were purchasing an improvement. 



EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 43 

Have the people of Delaware and Maryland offered to give the 
extra right of way that is needed to enlarge this canal to meet the 
requirements of the present project^ 

Col. Xewcomer. I do not think anything of that kind has been 
done. Of course, as a matter of fact, you understand that the 
United States Government contributed to the cost of this thing 
originally — bought some of the bonds. So that they have already 
been involved, more or less, in this proposition. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long do you think it would take, in case this 
proceedino- was put through, to complete the canal to a 12-foot 
depth? 

Col. Xewcomer. It would be a matter of certainly several years; 
]')ossibly four or five years. I judge these proceedings authorized 
liere, if they are authorized, would take fully a year. But there is 
no apparent reason why they should not proceed. 

^Ir. CosTELLO. Just let me straighten this out, if I can. There 
have been various investigations made for a canal across this penin- 
sula. The engineers of the Government, after due investigation 
and expenditure of many thousands of dollars, have concluded that 
this acquirement of the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal was the most 
economical plan for the Government. The Sassafras route, you re- 
member, was estimated to cost almost double what this Avill cost when 
we carry this to its ultimate conclusion. So that all the reports and 
all the investigations that have gone on for many years — the net 
result of them all is that this is the ])roject for the Government. Of 
course, the States of Maryland and Delaware could ^ive the right of 
way across the Sassafras River route, and still the Government's ex« 
penditure w:ould far exceed anything here, and it would not be as 
available and would make the route, I guess, a little longer. So that 
Avhen you sum up a tender giving something, you have to take into 
consideration all the conditions surrounding it. Some one might 
give you something that would be very much more expensive than 
if you started out and paid the cost of buying it in the first place. 

Mr. IvETTNER. I would like to have Mr. Costello's estimate of what 
this canal will cost. 

Mr. CosTELLO. The engineers' estimate — I am not an engineer and 
have never made one myself — is that when the project is carried out 
to its ultimate conclusion it will cost about $20,000,000. That is a 
tide-water canal. 

Mr. Kettner. Of what depth? 

Mr. CosTELLO. I think 16 or 18 feet. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, you are speaking from memory now. 
The reports are available. 

Mr. Keitner. Mr. Costello misunderstood my question. What do 
you thinlv a jury in Delaware would allow the owers of this canal, 
under condemnation proceedings? 

Mr. CosTEELO. I was just explaining to one of our members my 
thought on that matter. The people of Delaware and Marvlancl, 
from my contact with them — I go through there a couple of times a 
yenw on this canal — desire that the Government acquire it. They do 
not belie\e they have had proper treatment from the canal company, 
so that I believe if it goes to a condemnation proceeding, the wit- 
nesses, people who will be able to testify intelligently on this matter. 



44 EIVER AIvTD HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

will be in a position certainly to give a fair and unbiased statement 
in regard to the value of this canal. 

Mr. Frear. If it were made a condition precedent that those States 
should furnish the canal in its present condition, wdth the idea that 
the Government should go on and improve it, in view of the fact that 
the Government and the States made their contribution originally, do 
you thing that would be in any way an unfair provision, to insist on 
their contribution of the canal? The reason I ask that is because 
Philadelphia and Baltimore people are largely the ones who have 
urged it as a commercial project, and I was just asking if you think 
that would be an unfair condition precedent. 

Col. Newcomer. I think the War Department is thoroughly in 
sympathy with the policy of requiring the right of way, the land 
rights, to be given. Of course, when you come to the question of 
requiring the actual work of the improvement, which has cost money, 
to be given free of cost, that is a diiferent proposition. I do not think 
it has ever been presented ; I do not think any condition of that kind 
has ever been imposed. Of course, whether it would be judicious here 
to impose a condition that the States or those localities should provide 
this improvement in its present state, with the idea that the Govern- 
ment go ahead and enlarge it and make it more efficient, is a propo- 
tition the War Department has never given am^ special consideration. 

Mr. Frear. The reason that I suggested that is because I know the 
Engineers have, out on the Pacific coast, required that the localities 
should cooperate. 

Col. Newcomer. We feel it is a good policy. I think Congress has 
felt it a good policy to pursue, that the localities be required to coop- 
erate. But it is a question of how far it should go in -any particular 
case. 

Mr. Frear. That is what I am asking about this particular case: 
Avhat is your judgment in regard to that? 

Col. New-comer. I have not given any special consideration to this 
case. I myself think it would be a great thing if in all cases the locali- 
ties could be made to contribute toward an improvement, as a certifi- 
cate of their opinion of the value of that improvement. I think that 
would be a great thing. But whether it Avould be just in any par- 
ticular instance, or whether it would be practicable in this instance, is 
a different question. It certainly would be from my point of vicAV as 
to the policy a desirable thing to do. if you consider it practicable 
procedure. I do not know in this instance whether those States have 
laws enabling them to take up a proposition of that kind. 

Mr. CosTELLo. I suppose you are aware that the States of Pennsyl- 
vania, Maryland, and Delaware contributed originally to the building 
of this canal? 

Mr. Kettner. And the United States. 

Mr. CosTELLO. And the United States. It does not affect the State 
of Pennsylvania as to the amount of benefit that might be derived 
as much as it does the rest of the United States from the point of 
view^ of transportation, as to Avhat Congress might do. 

Mr. Httlbert. There is a line of boats running out of there noAV? 

The Chairman. We are discussing details now that do not affect 
the proposition, gentlemen. 

Col. Newcomer. There is this one feature about this, that you must 
not consider this a local matter as affecting only Delaware and Mary- 



I 



KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRTATIOX BILL. 45 

land, for the reason that all the waterways of Xorth and South Caro- 
lina which link up with the Chesapeake Bay would have this as their 
outlet to the Philadelphia and Xew York markets; so that it is not 
a matter confined to those two States. 

The Chairman. I just want to make this statement to the commit- 
tee : We have l^een discussing some details that will come U]) for sub- 
sequent consideration if a re])ort for this authorization shall be made 
to Congress. Looking at it from its broad stand])oint, this is a very 
important project. It has been surveyed and reports have been made 
a number of times, and in each instance a favorable report. And I 
doubt if one could read those reports in an open-minded way without 
agreeing with the various boards which have investigated and re- 
ported. 

This particular project connects with the Delaware River one of the 
busiest rivers in the United States. I think that is a fair statement. 

^Ir. HuLBERT. Is it a busier river than the East River? 

The Chairman. You could-hardly call that a river there. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Why? It has three — nearly four — times the com- 
merce of the Delaware River. 

The Chairman. It is not my intention to make invidious com- 
parisons. The DelaAvare River, as everybody knows, is a ri^^er with a 
large commerce. 

^Ir. Hflbert. And a river which is receiving large appropriations 
while the East River is not getting any. 

The Chairman. It has a very large commerce — Iccal. domestic, and 
foreign. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the great bays in the United 
States, and has tributary to it Baltimore and Xorfolk as Avell as other 
cities. This present canal, owned by private interests there, has only 
■I depth of 9 feet : its locks are limited to a width of -^4: feet. Barges 
have to be constructed to adjust themselves to those locks; and you 
will notice that the barges which pass through there are long and 
narrow. And yet. with all of those restrictions, the commerce it does 
now is very considerable. And if we made it a sea -level canal, as it 
would be according to the plan recommended by the engineers, Avith 
a depth of 12 feet, that would answer very many of the requirements 
of commerce and. to a limited extent, the military necessities. 

I think it is so important a project that it is worthy of the consider- 
ation of this committee and worthy of the consideration of Congress. 

Looking at it also from the broad standpoint, one of the very impor- 
tant projects of the country is the connecting of the Delaware River 
with Xew York Bay. across the State of X^ew Jersey : and that ought 
to be taken up. and probably should be taken up. along with the prop- 
osition of connecting the Delaware with Chesapeake Bay. They are 
()oth veiT important projects commercially and from a military stand- 
point, and it is well worth the time of the committee to read those 
reports and familiarize themselves with all the conditions. 

Mr. Frear. May I just make the statement, as long as the chair- 
man has stated his view, that I have not discussed the merits of the 
proposition. My question to the colonel was merely for the purpose 
of ascertaining from what viewpoint the engineers look at it. I 
think I have taken this up with a free and open mind, because, natu- 
rally. I have no prejudice as regards the i)ro])osition. I have been 
through the canal ; and I know the result of all this Avcrk will be to 
validate those bends and stock and make it a going ])ropositicn for 



46 RIVEE AND HAEBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

the people who hold them. I can not understand or agree with the 
chairman in regard to the merits of the proposition, and I am not 
going to discuss that, because I do not think it proper ; but I want to 
say there is a diverse opinion. 

(The committee thereupon adjourned to to-morrow, Wednesday ^ 
May 2, 1917, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 



Committee on Rivers and Harbors, 

House or Representatives, 

Wednesday, May 2, 1917. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock, a. m., Hon. John H. Small 
(chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF COL. HENRY .C. NEWCOMER— Resumed. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, I will read the next item : 

Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland : For maintenance of Patapsco 
River and Channel to Baltimore, including channel of approach at York Spit. 
Chesapeake Bay, $104,000; for improvement in accordance with the report 
submitted in House Document Numbered Seven hundred and ninety-nine, Sixty- 
fourth Congress, first session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said 
document, 51^250,000; and the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to prose- 
cute maintenance work in the inner harbor in accordance with the recommenda- 
tion submitted in said document ; in all, .$354,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Colonel, I take it that is a military necessity, too, 
is it not? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know that the military necessit}- here 
overshadows the commercial importance. Of course, you have here 
the question of getting the naval vessels to those coal piers and that 
is a particular military necessity so far as the Navy is concerned. 
They do get a great deal of coal there and the larger colliers require 
more water in the Curtis Bay Channel. Of course, the general 
proposition is for increased anchorage, and that is mainly a com- 
mercial proposition, but it has that military element. 

The Chairman. If there are no further questions, I will read the 
next item : 

Rockhnll, Queenstown. Clniborre. Tilplm^nn Island. Cambridge, and Cris- 
field Harbors. Elk and Tattle Elk. Chester. Corsica, Choptank, Tuckahoe. War- 
wick. La Trappe. Tred Avon, Wicomico, INIanokin, Big Annemessex, and Poco- 
moke Rivers. Slaughter. Tyaskin. and Broad Creeks, Twitch Cove and Big 
Thoroughfare River, and Lower Thoroughfare, Deal Island, Maryland, Nanti- 
coke River (including Northwest Fork), Delaware and Maryland, and Broad 
Creek River, Delaware: For maintenance, $15,800. 

Mr. Frear. May T ask the Colonel a question here ? 

The Chairman". Certainly. 

Mr. Frear. There are about thirtv different projects named here 
and they are all lumped together. What is the. purpose of placing 
so many in this group? 

Col. Newcomer. Thev are all on what is known as the Eastern 
Shore of Maryland. There are a number of small projects, none 
of them expensive, and it is desirable to have them all lumped to- 
gether, on the same proposition I illustrated yesterday, so that the 
sum which is made available can be distributed as necessity arises. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 47 

Mr. Frear. But this has never been done before. 

Col. Newcomer. Some of them have been grouped together be- 
fore. 

Mr. Frear. Yes ; I have the okl bill in front of me. 

Col. Newcomer. The old item included quite a number of them. 

Mr. Frear. But we have never had before one that included 30 
items. 

Col. Newcomer. No; I think not. i 

Mr. Frear. There were 6 or 8 in the old item. I have the old 
bill before me. and there were 6 or 8 in the item on pa2:e 10 of the 
old bill. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. 

Mr. Frear. My thought is this, as I said before : If we enlarge 
these groups in this way, it will be impossible hereafter, I take it, 
no matter whether a project is considered valueless or not, to ever 
get it out of the bill, because you are now taking so many and plac- 
ing them in one group. There is nothing indicated here as to how 
much is to be spent on any of these projects. 

Col. Newcomer. I will say, Mr. Frear, that information is fur- 
nished in the annual report — how much we expect to put at each 
place. 

Mr. Frear. That is done subsequent to the passage of the bill by 
the House. 

Col. Newcomer. Oh, no; prior to passage by the House. That 
estimate is here. 

Mr. Frear. Let me ask you how much will go to Eockhall ? 

Col. Newcomer. In this particular case? 

Mr. Frear. Yes. 

The Chairman. There is nothing recommended for Rockhall. 

Mr. Frear. Then why is Eockhall put in this group, unless, as 
you say on page 2T. you can take, if you desire, any part of that 
amount and transfer it to Rockhall. You can do that under that 
general principle. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, if desirable. 

Mr. Frear. Then, as I say, hoAv can the committee determine what 
amount is going to any of these projects? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know that you can determine in advance 
what exercise of discretion might be made by the Secretary of War 
and the Chief of Engineers under the authority granted by Con- 
gress. That, of course, is impossible. The Chief of Engineers and 
the Secretary of War do not know that in advance. 

Mr. Frear. So that it is j^ractically left in the hands entirely of the 
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers. 

Col. Newcomer. I would not say entirely. 

Mr. Frear. In what way are they limited ? 

Col. Newcomer. We report to Congress in our estimates for the 
year what we propose to do at each of these places, and according to 
the best information we have at the time that will be the thing to 
be done, and Congress appropriates money on that basis. That is the 
expected expenditure, but you give us authority, if this proposition 
goes through, to vary that program as the necessities of the case may 
develop ; and the changes are reported in the next annual report, and 
you can constantly keep tab on us in that way. If you wish to cut 



48 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

out any unworthy project, which you deem unworthy, at any time, 
you can leave out the names. 

Mr. Fbear. Rockhall is not going to get anything, so there is no 
object in cutting Rockhall out. Let me say that I have no reference 
to these particular items, but I am just trying to get at the policy, 
which is a pew policy presented to the committee, so we can under- 
stand it fully. 

Col. Newcomer. You Avill understand, Mr. Frear, so far as this 
estimate is concerned, it is not a new policy, because you have had a 
number of similar ones grouped together before. 

Mr. Frear. But nothing like what you have attempted to do here. 
Here are 30 different projects, averaging about $500 apiece, and you 
reserve to yourselves the right to change and transfer any fund you 
wish to any of the items under this particular group, and the com- 
mittee has no knowledge of what Avill be done. Now, I am not ques- 
tioning or impugning motives ; I am simply trying to ascertain the 
policy. Of course, it is only $15,000, but if it was $150,000 the prin- 
ciple would be the same, of course. 

Col. Newcomer. Do you not observe that the principle is exactly 
the same as obtained before? This is simply an extension of the 
same policy we had before. 

Mr. Freae. You might say that all of the projects in this Eiver 
and Harbor bill be grouped together without reference to any par- 
ticular locality and the same power be given you. Why should 3^ou 
place the limitation upon this group of 30 projects? Why not have 
the whole 200 projects grouped together with a lump sum? 

Col. Newcomer. I would not object to having a lump sum for all 
maintenance work. 

Mr. Switzer. That is what you have advocated heretofore. 

Mr. Frear. Yes; in trying to put a limitation on expenditures I 
have done that. 

Col. Newcomer. The point is we have o^rouped them for adminisr 
trative purposes in the same geographical vicinities and under the 
same district officer, so that the fund provided could be in the hands, 
ordinarily, of one man, and he can judge best of the relative merits. 
Of course, we act usually upon the information furnished by him. 
I believe it is a more workable proposition on that basis, keeping 
Congress informed as to the distribution of the money, than it would 
be on the other basis. However, as I say, I personally Avould have 
no objection to your doing it the other way if yoii desired to do so. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, you would not have any objection to our 
appropriating a lump sum for maintenance? 

Col. Neavcomer. I Avould not. 

Mr. Costello. Coloneb there is a reduction in dollars and cents of 
about $12,000 and an increase in the number of items over the bill of 
last year. My friend Frear over there raises the question, but I take 
it that Eockhall is not estimated to cost anything on this fund, and 
there is no amoimt set aside for it in your recommendation. 

Col. Newcomer. Exactly. 

Mr. Costello. But this money could be made available for any of 
these phaces that are set forth here if the necessity required it. 

(^)l. Newcomer. If the contingency arises; yes. 



EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 49 

Mr. CosTELLo. Therefore, from the engineer's point of view, the 
elasticity Avhich exists here is something that will contribute to the 
good of the Government? 

Col. Xewcomer. That is our idea. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Because joii have leeway suflicient to apply it, if 
the necessity occurs, at any of these places. 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Frear. That being true. Colonel, why would it not be per- 
fectly proper to include lines 12, 18, 14, 15, and IG. which follow, and 
which provide $30,000 for the Pctomac River and other places, not- 
withstanding the fact that tAvo districts Avould be taken in? Why 
would not that be perfectly proper? 

Col. Newcomer. The only objection I would have particularly 
would be the one I have just stated. It would involve another dis- 
trict. 

Mr. Frear. Bnt, if you desired, you could take it from one district 
and turn it over for work in another district, and that would be more 
convenient, would it not?" 

Col. Xewcomer. As I said before, I personally see no objection 
whatever to granting a maintenance fund which would be available 
all over the countr}^, if Congress desires to proceed to that limit. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions on this para- 
graph ? 

Col. Xewcomer. I think there is one statement I would li]?:e to 
add, ^Ir. Chairman, which I do not think was brought out in ^^ester- 
day's discussion of the question of policy in grouping items together. 
It is particularly pertinent to. this situation. On the Eastern Shore 
of Maryland there is a perfect network of waterways which is 
thronged ^^ith fishing craft of different kinds. The whole livelihood 
of the people there is bound up in the fishing industry, so that it is 
a matter of great importance, yet each individual case is a matter 
more or less insignificant as to cost. Now, we show here by this 
grouping of items that that whole section is being taken care of in 
this annual bill by this amount of $15,800. In other words, I think 
it is a fairer proposition than it would be to simply put in one or 
two items which might be involved in this particular sum, indicating 
you are only taking care of one or two items. As a matter of fact, 
this bill this year, in appropriating the sum provided, is taking care 
of the annual needs of all of these places, and I think it is well 
enough that all those places should appear in the bill. 

Mr. Frear. My criticism. Colonel, was only directed to this j^oint : 
When a project apparently is unworthy to any Member of the House, 
they are unable to point out why it should be dropped because no 
specific amount is set aside for that project. You say the engineer 
has determined what he will allow, but the engineer may not have 
determined to allow anything, and under the provision which is 
contained on page 27, he ma}^ allot the whole amount to that project, 
if he sees fit. so that the difficulty is that we can not determine anything 
about the amount of money that is supposed to go to these projects, 
if any at all. 

Col. Newcomer. But you can. Mr. Frear. That is just the point 
T made before. You can determine just as you did before exactly 
what is proposed to be expended there, because that is all given in 
97510—17 4 



50 BIVEE AND HARBOE APPROPRIATION BILL. 

the annual estimates. The annual estimates show which one of these 
items is involved, and hj going to that source of information you 
can tell what we propose to expend, although you do give us the 
discretion to vary that. 

Mr. Frear. Let me ask this question to make sure whether I am 
right about it and that we understand each other. You have here 
in this item $15,800. In the old bill you had $27,100, which is about 
$12,000 more, for a smaller number of items, and that was based 
upon your report, so that this $15,800 is only a small portion of what 
you have recommended as necessary for these items in your report, 
is it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. We have cut out certain items here which were 
for the improvement of the Wicomico River and the Big Annemessex 
Eiver. This item of $15,800 is the sum of the items reported for 
maintenance on page 12 of your book. I think I can pick out from 
the bill the number. For instance, there was for maintenance before 
a group of 12 items 

Mr. Frear. Yes; I understand that. There are about 29 or 30 in 
the present group. 

Col. Newcomer (continuing) . And the amount for maintenance in 
that group was $10,000. Then Ave have added in other items; for 
instance. Lower Thoroughfare has an item of $3,000, and Corsica 
Eiver, Md., $2,800. That shows just which items are included. The 
12 items which were in before took $10,000, the Lower Thoroughfare 
$3,000, and the Corsica Eiver $2,800. 

Mr. Frear. On page 12 there is $14,800 for the group of items in 
Maryland, and $3,000, as vou say, for Lower Thoroughfare, which 
makes $17,800; then $2,800 for Corsica' Eiver, which would be $20,000. 
Now, we find on page 8 of this bill $15,800, so that the two do not 
correspond, necessarily. 

Col. Newcomer. The amount for the group in the book prepared 
for the committee which footed up $14,800 was cut down by the 
committee to $10,000. The committee did not allow the amount esti- 
mated. They allowed $10,000 for that. 

Mr. Hulbert. And vou have added to that two items, one of $3,000 
and one of $2,800, Avhich makes the $15,800? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, that reduction was brought about by the 
fact that the committee thought the maintenance charge too heavy at 
those places for the very small commerce. 

Col. Newcomer. I do not recall now, Mr. Kennedy, the details of « 
that transaction. I, of course, was with the committee before when fl 
they made that reduction, and it may have been made at my sugges- 
tion, upon later information, I do not know ; but it was made by the 
committee as a result of the information furnished them. 

Mr. Kennedy. We cut out a few items because we thought the 
maintenance charge was entirely too heavy for the commerce carried 
by the stream. 

Col. Newcoimer. Yes; you reduced the amount $4,800 at that time, 
and of course the same thing may occur in the future. In other 
words, when a representative of the Office of the Chief of Engineers 
appears before the committee which is preparing the bill, he comes, 
of course, with information which is usually six months later than 
the estimate in the annual report, and that may, in some instances, 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 51 

modify the estimate. I kno\Y in some cases the committee has re- 
duced the amount without an}^ additional information. They have 
simply exercised their discretion in the matter and allotted a differ- 
ent sum. 

Mr. Kennedy. Colonel, in case the committee wanted to cut out 
some item, all it would have to do would be to strike the item out of 
tlie bill and the maintenance appropriation would not apply to it? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes: that Avould accomplish that purpose. 

The Chair^ian. Colonel, assuming that this paragraph as it is 
written here should be favorably reported and became a laAv, and 
you came to administer it in the War Department, how would you 
administer or expend this fund? 

Col. Xewcomer. We would primarily, of course, make a distribu- 
tion of it in accordance with the estimates, if those estimates had 
been approved, on the basis that that represents the needs as known 
at the time. Xow, if a different situation should develop, and we 
find Ave need more at one place and less at another, or that we needed 
something where before we anticipated the need of nothing, Ave can 
allot it in case of need, if the fund is sufficient for the purpose. And 
not only does it haA'e that advantage — I do not know that it is neces- 
sary to go into this because it was gone into yesterday. 

The Chairman. There is no reason Avhy it should not be repeated. 
I have just one other question. Each one of these items in this para- 
graph for Avhich a gross sum is appropriated for maintenance has 
been heretofore under improvement by the United States? 

Col. Xewcomer. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. So that we are not taking in any project Avhicli has 
not been heretofore improved by authority of Congress? 

Col. Xewcomer. Xo, sir. In this item as it passed the House and • 
as it was introduced in the Senate there were two items for addi- 
tional improvements which have been cut out as deemed not essential 
at this time. 

Mr. Treadavay. Hoav much inconvenience has the board experi- 
enced under the old system of practically allotting maintenance 
items for each individual item rather than imder the group system 
Avhich you are noAv advocating? 

Col. Xeavcomer. I do not knoAv that it has made any essential dif- 
ference to the board at all. We have had in before a number of group 
items. You Avill see them all through the book here, and I do not 
knoAA' that it has made any difference. It is a matter for the com- 
mittee to say Avhether it has embarrassed them in any AAay whatever 
because the amounts proposed for these items are set forth, and it 
is simply a question of enacting it in group form instead of the other 
form. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I Avould like to ask one 
question for general information. In this paragraph there are 29 or 
30 items. Suppose the committee should determine against this 
policy of grouping all these items, then in order to get at the amount 
Avhich AA'e should alloAv for maintenance Avould Ave go back to tlie 
items of the old bill ? 

Col. Xewcomer. We have simply taken the items in the old bill 
and grouped them, so that Avould be the procedure. 

The Chairman. In the last bill we grouped 12 of them, as you will 
find on page 12 of your book. 



52 KIVER AND HARBOK APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. 

The Chairman. If there are no further questions, we will proceed 
with the next item : 

Potomac River, at AVasliiujiton, District of Coliiiiibia, at Alexandria, Virginia, 
and at Lower Cedar Point, Maryland. Anacostia River. District of Columbia, 
Occoquan, Aqiiia, Upper Machodoc, -and Nomini Creeks, Virginia : For main- 
tenance, $30,000. 

Mr. SwiTZER. This does not include the channel at Newport Xews? 
Col. Newcomer. No, sir. 

The Chairman. If there are no further questions, we will proceed 
with the next item : 

Norfolk Harbor and channels, Virginia : For improvement, including channel 
to Newport News, in accordance with the report submitted in House Document 
Numbered Six hundred and five, Sixt.v-third Congress, second session, .$360,000. 
The unexpended balance of appropriations heretofore made for improvement of 
channel to Norfolk, Virginia, is hereby made available for continuing improve- 
ment of said channel in accordance with the report submitted in said document. 

Mr. Tread WAY. What is the object of that? 

Col. Newcomer. This is a new improvement w^hich was inserted 
in the bill before by the House, and the main provision provides for 
widening the channel from 400 feet to 600 feet, both to Newport 
News and into the Norfolk Harbor. The 400-foot channel is a i^rett}^ 
contracted channel for the movement of the big ships, and moreover 
it is encroached on more or less by a great many small craft which 
anchor there, and this also provides for certain anchorage ground. 

Mr. Treadway. Is it not the law or the usual method that an unex- 
pended balance is available for continuing the same work for which 
it was originally appropriated? 

Col. Newcomer. But this makes it available for new w^ork. If it 
is appropriated for a 400-foot channel, it can not be applied in con- 
structing a 600-foot channel. This makes the unexpended balances 
available for this new work. 

The Chairman. For a new project? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This widening of the channel at Norfolk to which 
you have referred is in reality the widening of the southern branch 
to the navy yard, is it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. It is that, and also the channel to Newport News. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is that a straight channel or a curved channel ? 

Col. Newcomer. It is curved, more or less. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is it because of the difficulty that you will have in 
moving the larger vessels at the turn that vou are increasing the width 
of the channel from 400 to 600 feet? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; we are making the channel regularly 600 
feet, and, of course, there Avill be some increased width at the turns. 

Mr. CosTELLO. I understood you to say that the part relating to 
Newport News w^as based upon the recommendation of the Navy 
Department, and was due to the contracted conditions there when 
they are launching ships. 

Col. Newcomer. That particular phase of it has not been brought 
to my attention. 

Mr. CosTELLO. I understood that they had a pretty contracted con- 
dition there. 

Col. Newcomer. Possiblv. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 53 

Mr. CosTELTx). Then, this entire appropriation is based upon 
commercial advantage. 

Col. Xewcomek. In this case, of course, there is an important 
military aspect because of the naxj yard at Norfolk and the use of 
the channel for naval vessels. They have, as a matter of fact^ 
asked for 40 feet there, but they have not asked for any specific 
width. They say that 750 feet, of course, would be the preferable 
minimum width, but they would like to have it up to 1,000 feet. 
As a matter of fact, we can not give the Norfolk Navy Yard 
channel that width because of the land situation and because of 
the structures en the land there, but we can give the channel pro- 
posed here. 

Mr. Dempsey. Hoav much is the unexpended balance. 

Col. Newcomer. My impression is that it is something like 
$100,000. 

Mr. Brooker (the clerk). It is $60,000. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions on this item? 

Mr. HuLBERT. I have one other question. They will take the 
same size or draft of vessels through this channel at Newport News 
that they would take through Hell Gate when it is improved? 

Col. Newcomer. I think so. 

Mr. HuLBERT. You say that a channel 500 feet wide at Hell Gate 
would suffice for the present needs? 

Col. Newcomer. I say that that is the channel that we can get 
quickest. We have at Norfolk now a 400-foot channel which is 
accommodating these boats in a way, but it is not adequate. A 
500-foot channel through Hell Gate is not adequate, either, but it 
is the first provision toward an adequate channel. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Then it will require the adoption of another 
project in order to increase it. 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; you can increase it by completing the 
project in the bill. This project provides for the full size channel. 

Mr. HuuBERT. How wide is it to be ? 

Col. Newcomer. I think about 900 feet. 

Mr. HuLBERT. That is the maximum under the project? 

Col. Neavcomer. It is usually 1,000 feet through East River. If 
we adopt this project through East River the channel will be gen- 
erally 1,000 feet, but we do not get that much through Hell Gate on 
account of the rocks. 

Mr. HuLBERT. What would be the maximum width that you could 
get through Hell Gate under the project which we have in the bill 
now ? 

Col. Newcomer. Do you mean authorized by the project or with 
the money provided? 

Mr. Hulbert. I mean authorized by the project. 

Col. Neavcomer. I will have to look that up and tell you, but my 
impression is that it will be about 650 feet at Hell Gate. It varies 
somewhat at different places on account of local conditions, but that 
is the project. 

The Chairman. Without objection, Mr. Hulbert may recur to that 
matter to-morrow morning, and in the meantime Col. Newcomer can 
inform himself about the details. 

The next item is — 

Rappahannock, ^Mattaponi, and Pai/.imkey Rivers. Urbana Creek, and Milford 
Haven Harbor, Va. : For maintenance, $15,000. 



54 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is all of that amount necessary? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; Ave think that amount is necessary. Of 
course, it is like any other estimate for maintenance in that it is 
based upon our best information. 

The Chairman. The next item is — 

James, Nansemond, Pagan, and Appomattox Rivers. Va. : For maintenance, 
$26,000; continuing improvement of James River, $46,000; in all, $72,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask a question in regard to the 
James River item. 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, there is a modification of that 
James River project recommended in the report, is there not? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But this sum recommended now, as I understand it, 
is the same that appears in the bill that was prepared last winter to 
continue on the old project? 

Col. Newcomer. It continues, of course, under the old project, but 
it does not contemplate any work beyond what is included in the rec- 
ommended modification. In other words, the recommended modifica- 
tion simply reduces the project depth from 22 feet to 18 feet, and all 
the work has been confined practically to a depth of 18 feet. We have 
gone through at that depth, and the money that it is proposed to ex- 
pend here is to be used within that limit. You will recall that the 
work recommended involved a further expenditure of something like 
$500,000. . 

Mr. Kennedy. That is for an 18 -foot channel and the cutting out 
of curves? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir ; that is the first work needed, and it will 
be the first work done. 

Mr. Kennedy. This work that is contemplated here would be done 
within the new project that has been recommended? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Since you Avere here last February, has there been 
any application made, so far as you know, to the board' of review for 
a reconsideration of the modification of that project from 22 feet to 
18 feet? 

Col. Newcomer. It has not gone back to the board. 

The Chairman. In the last bill, the committee gave considerable 
attention to the completion of a diversion channel or dam at Peters- 
burg? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. « 

The Chairman. One of the Representatives from Virginia, Judge ■ 
Watson, I believe, was before the committee, and provision was made 
for that. Now, that is not included in the present estimate. 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; it is not. 

The Chairman. For Avhat reason did you omit that? 

Col. Newcomer. We did not consider that it was an item that was 
particularly urgent. This matter is simply waiting there, and has 
been waiting for four years for the locality to do some work which b| 
they have not done, and we did not feel that it was incun^bent upon *' 
the United States to consider that as an emergency measure. 

The Chairman. Is the work which was to be done under local co- 
operation such work as must be done at the same time that the Gov- 
ernment work is done ? 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 55 

Col. Xe^vco-mer. It has to precede it. 

The Chairman. And they have not yet done their local work? 

Col. Newcomer. I understand that they have made provision for 
doing it, but it has not been actually accomplished. 

The Chairman. Suppose they should do their part of the work 
under local cooperation, as may be required, and a number of months 
should elapse, say, 6 months or 12 months, before the Government 
does its work. In the meantime, by reasoi; of the delay, would any 
deterioration result in the work that they might have done? 

Col. Newcomer. Xo, sir ; it would not affect their work. 

The Chairman. I am only asking these questions in order to make 
it clear to the Virginia Kepresentatives. 

Col. Xewcomer. The completion of the diversion dam is necessary 
simply to make easier the maintenance of the channel in front of 
Petersburg. The diversion dam there has not been completed, be- 
cause the local work that was required to be done had to precede 
the Government work. It simply means that the channel would be 
subject to the deterioration that it has been subject to for a number 
of years, and that it would require more for maintenance. It is de- 
sirable to complete the diversion dam as soon as the other work is 
done, but it is not regarded as especially urgent. 

The Chairman. The next item is — 

Blackwater River. Virginia. Melierrin and Roanoke Rivers, and Xewbegun 
Creek, North Carolina : For maintenance, $2,500. 

Col. Xewcomer. Xewbegun Creek should be stricken out. It was 
left in there by error. In the last Congress there was inserted an 
item for the improvement of Xewbegun Creek, and in striking out 
the amount we neglected to strike out the name, and the name should 
be stricken out. Of course there is nothing appropriated for it. 

The Chairman. The improvement of that creek is omitted from 
these recommendations ? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The next item is — 

Waterway from Norfolk. Virginia, to Beaufort Inlet, Xortli Carolina : Con- 
tinuing improvement, .$100,000: Provided, That the route of the waterway may, 
in the discretion of the Secretary of War. be modified in accordance with the re- 
port submitted in House Document Numbered Fourteen hundred and seventy- 
eight. Sixty-third Congress, third session: And provided further, That not more 
than $75,000 shall be expended in acquiring the necessary rights of way between 
Albemarle Sound and Pungo River. 

Mr. Frear. What has been done in regard to the land required 
for right of way? About 800 acres was required, and the question 
came up whether local contributions for the land Avould be secured. 
What is the status of that now? I notice this provision that not 
more than $75,000 shall be expended in acquiring the necessary rights 
of way between Albemarle Sound and Pungo River. 

Col. Xewco^ier. We have not received any report from the dis- 
trict officer. Of coilrse, we have not been authorized yet to proceed 
toward acquiring any land, because we have been waiting for this 
legislation. However, I have just been informed that there is a 
prospect — in fact, Mr. Small told me that he had information indi- 
cating that there is a prospect of getting this land at a very low 
price, as low as $3 per acre, which is beloAv the estimate made. 



56 RIVEE AND HAEBOE APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

Mr. Fkear. Then, is that large amount of $75,000 necessary, do 
you think? 

Col. Neavcomer. The amount estimated before, I think, was $150,- 
000 for right of way, but that was cut in half by the committee- be- 
cause they thought the other amount was too great. I am not in a 
position really to give you precise information as to whether $75,000 
is required for that purpose or not. We had, at first, left out this 
item, but concluded that there was some question as to whether the 
appropriation which we had unexpended would be sufficient to fin- 
ish the waterway between Norfolk and Albemarle Sound. It is 
necessary to go through there in order to reach the connecting water- 
ways to Pamlico Sound. We have funds already provided that 
were expected to complete that, but there is some question as to 
whether they will be sufficient on account of the general increase in 
prices and in the cost of work. The $100,000 now proposed will in- 
sure the completion of that section, and we think will be sufficient to 
acquire the right of w^ay for the other. 

Mr. Freae. How much have you now on hand of that appro- 
priation ? 

Col. Newcomer. Mr. Brooker can probably give you that amount. 

Mr. Brooker (the clerk). The available balance is $172,000. 

Col. Newcomer. We have made contracts covering a large part of 
that appropriation, and this available balance of $172,000 is for 
the operation of the Government plant. We are doing that work 
both by contract and by Government plant. 

Mr. Frear. What is the change proposed here? I have an indis- 
tinct recollection of this House Document No. 1478. 

Col. Newcomer. The original plan adopted by Congress; that is, 
the existing project, provides for a channel through Alligator Kiver 
to Rose Bay, while the revised route goes through Alligator River to 
Pungo River and Pamlico Bay. 

Mr. Frear. That has not been determined at this time ? 

Col. Newcomer. That modification has not yet been approved. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Does this modification abandon any right of way 
that has been already acquired ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. 

Mr. Hulbert. Will $75,000 cover all the right of way that has to 
be acquired? 

Col. Newcomer. It is to be expected that it will, from the best in- 
formation, but we do not know positively. 

Mr. DuPRE. As I recall the bill last year, there was appropriated 
$1,000,000 for continuing the improvement? 

Col. Newxomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dupre. And you have reduced that to $100,000? 

Mr. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DuPRE. Why ? 

Col. Newcomer. It was expected that the work would proceed 
vigorously upon- the acquisition of the right of way, which was ex- 
pected to take six or seven months. It Avas then expected to go 
ahead Avith the construction of the route, but this provision omits 
any actual Avork of construction. We estimate that this Avill prob- 
ably be sufficient to finish the other link and to acquire the right 
of Avay. When Ave go into Albemarle Sound from Norfolk by the 
link noAv approaching completion Ave can haA^e access to Pamlico 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 57 

Sound through Croaton Sound, with a depth of bet^Yeen 9 and 
10 feet, wliich, of course, will give a means of communication. In 
fact, that is the route now followed by the commerce that originates, 
on Pamlico Sound and that comes north to Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. DuPRE. In other words, the department has pared that rec- 
ommendation down to $100,000? 

Col. Xewcomer. That is because of the emergency situation and 
because this is an emergency bill. 

The Chairman. The next item is: 

Manteo and Thoroughfare Bays, Scuppernons, Pamlico, Tar, South, Bay,. 
Neiise. and Trent liivers, Fishing*. Contentnia. Swift, and Smith Creeks, and 
waterway connecting Swan Quarter Bay witli Deep Bay, North Carolina : For 
maintenance. $15,500. 

Mr. Frear. That is the first case where they have been grouped 
t ogether ? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes, sir; I believe so. 
The Chairman. The next item is: 

Beaufort and Morehead City Harbors, waterway from Pamlico Sound to 
Beaufort Inlet, waterway connecting Core Sound and Beaufort Harbor, inland 
v\-aterway. Beaufort to Jacksonville, and Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina : For 
maintenance. $35,500; and the unexpended balances of appropriations hereto- 
fore made for New River, North Carolina, are hereby made available for the 
improvement of the inland waterway, Beaufort to Jacksonville, in accordance 
with the report submitted in House Document Numbered seventeen hundred 
;\nd seventy-five. Sixty-fourth Congress, second session. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is that route from Beaufort to Jacksonville a new 
project ? 

Col. Xewcomer. Xo, sir ; it is a new name for an old route. 

Mr. Hulbert. It was not in the bill that we passed last February, 
was it ? 

Col. Xewco^ier. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Hulbert. Why do you put it in this bill? 

Col. Xewcomer. It was put in by the Senate. It was in the 
Senate bill as introduced in the Senate by the Senate Committee on 
Commerce. 

Mr. Hulbert. In other words, in making up this bill, have you 
adopted the plan of taking in the items that were added by the 
Senate to the bill that was made up by this committee last February ? 

Col. Xewcomer. We adopted the policy of taking the Senate bill 
as the basis for consideration in preparing this emergency bill. This 
item that is introduced here is simply a proposition to recognize an 
existing situation there. There is a project for the Xew River which 
provides an outlet to the Atlantic Ocean for traffic going around to 
Wilmington, but, as a matter of fact, the inlet can not be main- 
tained, and the Xew River traffic has gone north to Morehead City 
and Beaufort through this inland waterway that lies between Beau- 
fort and Jacksonville, and the proposition now is simply to make 
the money appropriated for Xew^ River available for this better con- 
nection by this inland waterway. 

Mr. Hulbert. What was the former name of this improvement? 
You say that this is an old improvement under a new name ? 

Col. Xewcomer. It was in three sections before. You will find it 
on page 574 of the report. Item A appears on page 574 under the 
head of " Xew River "; on page 576 you will find item B, " Waterway 



58 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

between New River and Swansboro," and on page 578 you will find 
item C, " AYaterway between Beaufort Harbor and New River, North 
Carolina (i. e., portion between Beaufort and Swansboro)." Those 
are the three different items in that one route. 

Mr. HuLBERT. I want to call your attention to this statement under 
the subhead " (A) New River," on page 575 : 

It is not proposed to prosecute the existing project actively, as tlie funds on 
hand are believed to be inadequate. No estimate for additional appropriation is 
submitted. 

Under the subhead "(B) Water.way between New River and 
Swansboro." on page 577, this statement appears : 

The funds available June 30, 1916, will be exhausted about December 30, 1918. 
It is proposed to apply the funds on hand to purchase of equipment for U. S. 
Dredge Croatan and maintenance of the channel by dredging with United ^States 
plant and hired labor during October, November, and December of 191G, 1917, 
and 191S. 

Then, under subhead "(C) Waterway between Beaufort Harbor 
and New River, North Carolina," etc., on page 579, this statement 
appears : 

It is proposed to apply the funds on hand to purchase equipment for the 
U. S. Dredge Croatan and maintenance of the project by dredging with United 
States plant and hired labor during .January, February, and March of 1917 and 
1918. 

Now. what is the particular urgency of this work, in accordance 
with the report submitted in House Document No. 1775, Sixty-fourth 
Congress, second session, at this time ? 

Col. Neavcomer. That Avill not involve any additional appropria- 
tion. As I have stated, there is now a route leading from Jackson- 
ville on the New River through the New River inlet to the ocean, 
and there is a balance of between $6,000 and $7,000 on that project, 
Avhich is not sufficient for carrying out that project and giving the 
proposed depth to that inlet. We have a channel there 250 feet wide 
and 5 feet deep. Now. it is found that that channel can not be pro- 
vided from the funds available. Moreover, since that project was 
adopted the traffic no longer attempts to pass through that inlet out 
through the ocean to Wilmington, but it goes through that inland 
waterway to Morehead Harbor and Beaufort, and we want to get a 
better connection between New River and that inland waterwa}^ We 
can accomplish that connection with the funds now on hand for New 
River, but which are inadequate for carrying out the other project, 
and, in fact, that other project should not be carried out. 

Mr. HuLBERT. What items in this bill that passed the House last 
February and not carried in this proposed bill,4nake up that $35,500? 

Col. Newcomer. The item for Beaufort Harbor 

Mr. HiTLBERT. That was $-1,500. 

Col. Newcomer. Beaufort Harbor, for maintenance, $4,500; Beau- 
fort Inlet, for maintenance, $14,000; and Morehead City Harbor, for 
maintenance, $2,000. Then the item for the waterway from Pamlico 
Sound to Beaufort Inlet was $14,000, I think. 

Mr. HuEBERT. That makes up the $35,500. 

Col. Newcomer. The waterway between Beaufort and Jacksonville 
has the smallest project depth of any v\'aterAvay in the United States. 

Mr. HuLBERT. What is the depth? 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 59 

Col. NEWCo:\rER. In a part of the waterway it is from 3 to 4 feet 
at high water. 

Mr. HuLBERT. How much is it at low water? 

Col. Xewco:mer. It has a range of from 1 to 3 feet. It is just for 
small boats. In a part of the waterAvay, of course, there is a greater 
depth. There is a greater depth as you pass through the sound. But 
they have found that with this waterway, small as it is, they can get 
through and accommodate the modest commerce there, which, I think, 
is from 20,000 to 30,000 tons. 

Mr. Hulbert. Is that the project depth? 

Col. Xeavcomer. a part of it is 3 feet at low water, and a part of 
it is 4 feet at high water. It is only for small craft. 

]Mr. DuPRE. As I understand it. in these matters of maintenance 
you have practically the same amounts that were recommended and 
approved in last year's bill. 

Col. Xewcomer. The same amount that was approved. 

Mr. DuPRE. Xot only in this item, but as a general proposition ? 

Col. Xewcomer. In all cases. 

^Ir. Dupre. Where there is a bunching, so to speak, of various 
projects, the total sum is simply the sum of the different items that 
were provided for in a separate way ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hulbert. You say that is true in all cases, but by that you 
mean in all cases where the estimates were retained in the bill? 

Col. Xewcomer. We have retained all of the maintenance items. 

Mr. Hulbert. You did not retain the maintenance estimate for the 
Harlem River. 

Col. Xewcomer. That was for improvement, not for maintenance. 

Mr. Hulbert. It was for continuing improvement. 

Col., Xewcomer. Yes, sir ; but that is a different proposition. 

The Chairman. Mr. Frear, you wanted to ask Col. XcAvcomer 
about this item a while ago. 

Mr. Frear. I think it was just about the amount on hand, and I 
believe Col. Xewcomer has stated it alreadv. 

The Chairman. I think he said it was between $6,000 and $7,000. 

Mr. Hulbert. How much of the unexpended balance under this 
project is available for the improvement of that inland waterway? 
You distinguish that from maintenance, do you not ? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes, sir: it is a new project and it involves a new 
appropriation. It is simply a better use of the money on hand, and 
I think it is advisable to use it that way. 

The Chairman. The next item is: 

Northeast, Black, and Cape Fear Rivers, N. C. : For maintenance. $85,000 ; 
'•onii)letin2: improvement of Cape Fear River below Wilminjiton, .$35,000; in 
all. $120,000. 

Mr. Hulbert. What is the particular urgency of this item at this 
time? Is it for commerce or is it connected with the national de- 
fense ? 

Col. Xewcomer. Wilmington Harbor, of course, is a very important 
outlet for commerce, ])articularly with reference to fertilizers in this 
case. Fertilizer is the heavy item of commerce on that river, and it 
is verv desirable, of course, to make this improvement. 



60 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The Chaikman. If there are no other questions, we will pass to the 
next item : 

Charleston Harbor and Channels, South Carolina : For maintenance. $40,000 ; 
for improvement in accordance with the report submitted in House Document. 
Numbered Two hundred and eighty-eight, Sixty-second Congress, second session, 
and subject to the conditions set forth in said document, $70,000 ; for mainte- 
nance of Ashley River Channel, $10,000 ; in all, $120,000. 

Mr. Frear. May I ask a question with regard to the item we have 
just passed? I have been trying to ascertain about this item of 
$85,000 for maintenance of the Northeast, Black, and Cape Fear 
Rivers. There is nothing in the other bill which is clear to me. 
There was an item of $115,000 in the other bill, but why is this amount 
of $85,000 left in the bill for maintenance of the Northeast, Black, 
and Cape Fear Rivers, lines 10, 11, and 12 of page 10 of the bill ? 

Col. Newcomer. The bill as passed by the House carried an item 
for Cape Fear River, at and below Wilmington, for completing the 
improvement and for maintenance, of $115,000. As a matter of fact, 
of that amount $35,000 w^as for continuing or completing the im- 
provement and the other was for maintenance, and we have simph^ 
separated it here. 

Mr. Frear. That included the two items, then ? 

Col. Nea\^comer. Yes. 

Mr. HuLBERT. The other item included the maintenance and the 
improvement both ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes; before the projects were grouped together. 

The Chairman. If there are ho further questions, we will proceed 
Avith the next item : 

Wiuyah Bay, Waccamaw, Little Peedee, and Great Peedee Rivers, South Caro- 
lina: For maintenance, $70,000. 

Mr. Frear. That has been cut from over $80,000. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. 

Mr. Frear. AYas not the other for the improvement of the Winyah 
Ba.y project? 

Col. Newcomer. We left in the item for maintenance of Winyah 
Bay and cut out the item for the improvement there. We have the 
channel at project depth, and the additional work proposed is the 
construction of a training wall in order to reduce the expense of 
maintenance. We thought that the $80,000 might for the time being 
be left out. 

Mr. Frear. What is the item for maintenance for Winyah Bay, if 
1 mav ask? 

Col. Newcomer. $G5.000. 

The Chairman. If there are no further questions, we will pass to 
i he next item : 

Santee, Wateree, and Congaree Rivers, South Carolina: For maintenance, 
including the Estherville-:Minim Creek Canal and the Congaree River as far up 
as the Gervais Street Bridge, Columbia, $30,000. 

Mr. Treadway. May I ask the immediate need of this appropria- 
tion. Colonel? 

Col. Newcomer. This is mainly for use on the Congaree River. 
You know that from Columbia out they are maintaining a barge line, 
and the Columbia merchants claim, of course, that it is a matter of 
great importance for them to have that barge line in operation, and 
this is mainly for maintenance work on the Congaree River. In the 



KIVER AXD HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 61 

last bill there was an additional improvement authorized, but we left 
that out because we thought it was not sufficiently urgent. 

The Chairman. If there are no further questions, we will take up 
the next item : 

Waterway between Beaufort, South C-irolina, and Saint .Johns River, Florida : 
For mainteiiance. $43,000. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Colonel, what is the relation of this waterway to the 
waterAvay which you termed the waterway from Beaufort to Jack- 
sonville ? 

Col. Newcomer. That was from Beaufort, N. C, to Jacksonville, 
X. C, a very short waterway. We have here grouped together three 
sections of the Avaterwav which were formerly reported separatel}^; 
that is all. 

The Chairman. If there are no further questions, we will take up 
the next item : 

Savannah River, hehiw. at, and above Augusta, and Savannah Harbor, 
Georgia: For maintenance. .$380,000; for improvement of Savannah Harbor in 
accordance witii the report submitted in House Document Numbered Fourteen 
liundred and seventy-one. Sixty-fourth Congress, second session, and subject to 
tlie conditions set fortli in said document. $500,000: Provided, That no expense 
sliall be incurred by tlie United States for acquiring any lands required for the 
purpose of 'this improvement; in all, $880,000. 

Mr. Feear. With regard to-this $500,000 item. Colonel, what is the 
importance at this particular time of this improvement? This is 
above Savannah, as I recall? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; below: that is, it is at the Savannah 
Harbor. 

Mr. Frear. Savannah Harbor has been extended, has it not? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. We include in one item here all of 
Savannah River which, of course, includes Savannah Harbor, and 
the Savannah River below Augusta, which extends from Savannah 
to Augusta and the Savannah River above Augusta. 

Mr. Frear. Is this for an extension of the depth, or what is it ? 

Col. Newco3ier. This new project is to provide additional depth 
over the bar, and also some anchorage space inside. You v»'ill remem- 
ber that that is a 400-foot channel, and it is very crowded. There is no 
place to turn vessels, and we want to have a turning basin and an 
anchorage ground, and the other matter of special importance is 
that the maintenance cost of this project is running ver}^ high on 
account of the deterioration of the training walls and controlling 
works which were built a number of years ago. The work in recent 
•years has been confined almost entirely to dredging. Those train- 
ing walls need to be built up and extended in order to reduce this 
very high cost of maintenance. 

^Ir. Frear. What are those walls, ma^^ I ask? Are they for the 
protection of the land? 

Col. Newcomer. No; they are for the protection of the channel, 
cutting off the side outlets, and other places where the silt is brought 
into it. They are usually mattress and pile structures, or timber 
structures and stone. 

Mr. Gray. How long Avould it take to complete that project? 

Col. Newco^mer. The project involves a total expenditure of some- 
thing like $2,000,000, including the maintenance work during that 
time, of course. 



62 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATIOISr BILL. 

Mr. Gray. About how long would it take ? 

Col. Newcomer. It would take about four years on a program like 
this. 

Mr. Gray. That is what I wanted to knoAv. 

Col. Newcomer. But the immediate need, of course, for something 
there is to get some additional space for handling vessels. They 
need that very much. 

Mr. Frear. Perhaps I had in mind the item of $380,000 for the 
Savannah River below, at, and above Augusta. What is that for? 
Is not that for the building of retaining walls along the side of the 
river ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; the maintenance item of $380,000 is made 
up, if I recall correctly, of $350,000 for the harbor at Savannah and 
$30,000 for the river between Savannah and Augusta. I suppose you 
are referring to the revetment at Augusta. That has already been 
provided for, and there is nothing in this bill for that. 

The Chair]man. If there are no further questions, we will take up 
the next item : 

Sapelo and Darien Harbors. Cowhead and Satilla Rivers. Club, Pbintation. 
and Fancy Bluff Creeks, Georgia, and Saint Marys River, Georgia and Flor- 
ida : For maintenance, $12,500. 

If there are no questions on that item, we will take up the next one : 

Brunswick Harbor Georgia : For maintenance, $33,250. 

Colonel, just for the information of the committee, why did you 
not report the item for the new project at Brunswick? 

Col. Newcomer. AVe did not deem that of especial urgency at this 
time, although it is a very desirable work, in order to permit boats 
to go out on single tide and give them somewhat greater draft also. 
They have now a project there of 23 feet at low water, Avhich gives 
them practically 30 feet at high water. 

Mr. Kennedy, What does the commerce there consist of roughly? 

Col. Newcomer. It consists of cotton and naval stores. I think 
probably cotton is the most valuable item of commerce. 

The Chairman. And also lumber? 

Col. Newcomer. Lumber in large quantities also. It is quite an 
important harbor. It is one of the outlets of the Southern Railway. 

Mr. DupRE. I have been given to understand that there are large 
possibilities there and that Brunswick Harbor is one of the very 
desirable harbors on the South Atlantic. 

Col. Newcomer. It affords an opportunity for extending the facil- 
ities there at a moderate cost: that is, up to a 30-foot depth the 
expense probably would not be great. 

The Ciiairma"^n. If there are no further questions, we will take 
up the next item : 

Altamaha, Oconee, and Ocniulgee Rivers, Georgia: Continuing improvement 
and for maintenance. $40,000. 

Mr. Treadway. What is to be the nature of this improvement? 

Col. Newcomer. This is a case Avhere we formerly had a project 
to get a depth of 4 feet on these rivers. As a matter of fact, we found 
it was hardly practicable to get that at a reasonable expense, as 
compared with the commerce upon the river, and upon the recom- 
mendation of the department Congress adopted a project for an 



EIVEK AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 63 

annual expenditure of $40,000, thinking that was a reasonable pro- 
vision, or all that could be afforded for the commerce on the stream, 
and we have accomplished what we could with that amount toward 
ameliorating the conditions, and they are gradually increasing the 
depth and improving the shoals with that fund. It affords an oppor- 
tunity not onl}" to maintain and to do the necessary snagging and 
clearing of shoals that are formed, but it provides also a small 
amount which can be applied to additional improvement toward 
securing the 4 foot depth. 

Mr. Treadway. Then this annual amount is a sort of arbitrary 
amount which was arrived at irrespective of the needs of the country 
when the appropriation happened to be made ? 

Col. Newcomer. We could expend, of course, much more than this 
and still not complete the 4-foot project. 

Mr. Treadway. Yes; I can conceive of that; a great deal more. 

Col. Newcomer. As a matter of fact, the district officer and the 
division engineer at that time, later Chief of Engineers, Gen. King- 
nian, as I recall it, recommended an expenditure of $60,000, with the 
idea that that would give a 4-foot channel in a certain term of years. 

Mr. Treadway. How long has this $40,000 been carried ? 

Col. Newcomer. It is my impression that has run for four or five 
years. I am not sure when that was adopted, although I could find 
out from the annual report, of course. Congress thought that $60,000 
was greater than would be justified. The existing arrangement was 
adopted in 1912, and provides for an appropriation of $40,000 a 
year. 

Mr. Savitzer. I think we increased the amount once or twice. 

Col. Newcomer. I do not recall that you have increased the amount 
since this new project Avas adopted. 

Mr. Treadway. As a matter of fact, the commerce has been neg- 
ligible, has it not ? 

Col. Neavcomer. The commerce on the Altamaha has been in the 
neighborhood of 100,000 tons. In 1915 it was only 76,000, and the 
Year before that it was 103.000. On the Oconee the commerce Avas 
about 42.000 in 1915. 

Mr. Treadaa^ay. That includes rafted logs. 

Col. Neavcomer. The amounts are stated here. It does include 
that; yes. 

Mr. Treadavay. And, as a matter of fact, there is but one boat in 
operation. 

Col. Neavcomer. There is only one regular transportation line in 
operation between Macon 

Mr. Treadaa\\y (interposing). And they had to go to Europe or 
some other place to secure an engine which did not Aveight the boat 
down so that it could not go on the dew. I think that appears in 
our hearing. 

Mr. Frear. We have spent over $1,000,000 on that project, have Ave 
not, Colonel? 

Col. Neavcomer. The amount expended on all the projects is 
$809,000. 

Mr. Frear. That is the amount expended on new work, and the 
amount spent on maintenance is about $200,000, Avhich makes it a 
little over $1,000,000. 



64 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Neavcomee. Yes; that is right. About $1,000,000 for new 
work and maintenance. 

Mr. Trez^.dway, And, of course, this comes within the general rule 
of an emergency for national defense? 

Col. Newcomer. This was classed in the geneval rule of mainte- 
nance rather than emergency. In other words, we proceeded on the 
policy that the existing facilities for navigation should be main- 
tained. Most of this $40,000 is, of course, required for the mainte- 
nance of the 3-foot depth. It does supply a little additional each 
year for continuing the improvement toward the 4-foot depth. 

Mr. Treadway. Let me go back a moment, because that answer 
rather changes my idea of the method under which this bill is being 
framed. Any items of improvement you considered with reference to 
the emergency for national defense, and items for maintenance are to 
retain the upkeep of the present works ; is that correct ? I am asking 
a general question with reference to the basis of the bill, if I may. 

Col. Newcomer. That is substantially the case. Of course you 
include in the term *' national defense " any urgent commercial ne- 
cessity which affects the national welfare as an element of national 
preparedness. 

Mr. Tread WAV. Anything which affects the resources of the coun- 
try ; I suppose that would be true. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you a question. Colonel. As a general 
proposition, is not the channel as maintained now in various streams 
of the countr^^ sufficient to accommodate the commerce offered and 
the boats which are in commission on those streams ? 

Col. Newcomer. No ; I would not think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. On wliat streams, if any, does that condition not 
obtain ? 

Col. Newcomer. Well, there are a great many streams — the Ohio, 
for instance, the Missouri, and the upper Mississippi. They are not 
adequate even for the existing commerce. In other words, existing 
commerce has trouble, and they can not accommodate the commerce 
that they would accommodate with improved conditions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me call your attention to what I called to the 
attention of Gen. Black Avhen he was before us last winter in regard 
to the upper Mississippi. I am more familiar with that than the 
others. I take it that the appropriation which is made to prosecute 
the 6-foot channel on the upper Mississippi is expended largely on 
contracts; in fact, that is Avhat I am told out there, and that the work 
of keeping a navigable channel open is done by the department 
plant. As a matter of fact, the Government plant for the past three 
years on the Mississippi River has not been in operation to exceed 
four months in the year. They have neglected, in other words, the 
ordinary work of keeping a navigable channel open at points where 
they are not working on the permanent 6-foot channel, and that has 
been the trouble out there. 

Col. Newcomer. I think you will find, Mr. Kennedy, that that 
statement of the facts is disputed by some, as to the extent the 
Government plant has been used and as to the difficulties which 
have been experienced. There has been a good deal of controversy 
over that point. 



EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 65 

Mr. Kennedy. As a matter of fact, I remember that before the 
6-foot channel was adopted the Government phint would start out 
in the spring under a lump-sum appropriation to keep open a navi- 
gable cliannel. They stayed out until the loth of November, when 
navigation closed. It occurs to me the trouble out there has been 
Avith the maintenance proposition, because the money has been 
largely expended on contracts looking to the completion of the 6-foot 
channel. 

Col. Xewcomer. I think you. will find the records will show there 
has been considerable money spent for maintenance ; also in the oper- 
ation of the Government plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. The records will also show that a large part of the 
Government plant laid at the bank and has laid at the bank for the 
past three years on the upper Mississippi. 

Col. Xewcomer. You, of course, do not mean continuously? 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean that the crews and the men which the 
Government employs have not gone out for the last three years until 
lifter the 1st of July. I understand that that is partly due to the 
fact that Congress has not passed the appropriation bill earlier in 
the session, but it is also due to the fact that whoever has charge of 
the distribution of the funds out there has let contracts for the work 
on the permanent B-foot channel with the result that they have not 
had money enough to keep the Government plant keeping the chan- 
nel clear in operation. It was called particularly to my attention by 
the fact that several engineers on Government fleets, three in my 
little town, quit and said, " We can not wait around nine months to 
get three months' work a year." 

Col. Newcomer. Of course, you understand that most of the work 
of maintenance is done in a very limited time. For instance, take 
the dredges for the 9-foot channel on the lower Mississippi. I sup- 
pose, as a matter of fact, they do not average more than three months 
in the year, if they average that much. This maintenance work is 
required during the low-water season only. In other words, during 
the greater part of the year you have a channel, due to the stage of 
the water, which does not require dredging. As you approach the 
low- water stage, of course, the plant ought to get out and take care 
of the shoaling bars, etc., so as to get as much draft as you can 
during the low-water season. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, as a matter of fact, could yen not with a 
maintenance fund of, say, $250,000, with a Government fleet, keep a 
navigable channel next summer in the upper Mississippi River? 

Col. Newcomer. A navigable channel of what depth ? 

jMr. Kennedy. The depth you contemplate for commerce on that 
stream. 

Col. Newcomer. I should say not. I do not think it is possible to 
get. within a considerable limit of expenditure, a channel which is 
sufficient to accommodate them at all stages. Of course, the boats can 
load lighter and put on half loads and things like that, and, of 
course, they can proceed under such conditions. . I do not mean to 
say that navigation would be blocked. 

Mr. Kennedy. As a matter of fact, there is no through na^'igation 
on the upper Mississippi which requires deep-draft boats. There is 
just one line between St. Louis and St. Paul, which operates about 
97510—17 5 



66 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

four months in the year during the heated season, and that is a pas- 
senger proposition pure and simple ; and, as a matter of fact, before 
the 6-foot channel was adopted a navigable channel was kept at a 
nominal expense — a lump-sum appropriation, to keep the channel 
open. At that time there were 25 times as many boats on the river 
as there are at the present time. 

Col. Newcomer. Of course, at that time they had a project of 4| 
feet. It was unfortunately the case, and w^e can not blink at the fact, 
that there is not any commerce on the upper Mississippi or on the 
Missouri or on the Ohio which justifies the expenditures that are 
being made there.' There is no question about that. The only thing 
that can justify the expenditure will be the development of commerce 
after the improvement is provided. It is like a railroad, which you 
say can not carry commerce because it has not the facilities for car- 
rying it. It is true there has been greater commerce on those streams 
in the past than at the present time. That commerce has largely been 
diverted to railroads, because the railroads afforded them better 
facilities. 

Mr. Kennedy. The fact is that commerce is falling off, and part 
of this line is being converted into pure excursion boats. The only 
line they had with a little local traffic, instead of making daily round 
trips is making a round trip each two clays. It seems to me that 
in a bill of this character the 6-foot channel proposition on the 
Mississippi River might well be suspended for the present and a 
sufficient sum provided to keep an open channel. Now, do not think 
I am prejudiced against this proposition, because 60 per cent of the 
people I represent live in counties bordering on this stream. 

Col. Newcomer. That is a matter we would regard as being a 
matter more for the discretion of Congress. We understand that 
Congress has embarked upon this proposition, which involves a very 
large expenditure, and very large sums have already been expended 
on it. To stop short of the goal, you certainly do not promote any 
development of traffic there, and 3^ou discourage any efforts which 
are being made now by the different cities along the river to build 
up their terminals and get better facilities. As I say, it is a question 
of discretion. We thought it ought to be included, because so much 
had been expended, and it is so important to keep alive any possi- 
bility of commerce there that we included it. 

Mr. Kennedy. It occurred to me that this is typical of other 
streams and at this time, when we are taxing the people to the 
greatest extent ever known in the history of the country, Ave ought 
to cut out the things that can be cut out at this time. 

Col. Newcomer. You will notice that we have on most of the 
streams cut out the improvement and limited it to maintenance, and 
Ave feel that those propositions ought to go to Congress for its deter- ' 
mination. 

The Chairman. Before AA-e leave this item for the Altamaha, Oco- 
nee, and Ocmulgee Rivers, I Avill say that I have added up the com- 
merce for the calendar vear 1915, and I find that thev had a com- 
merce of 152,833 tons, Avith a valuation of $2,378,852. 

Mr. Frear. Mav I inquire if that does not include logs and cross- 
ties? 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 67 

The Chairman. I did not look up the items. 

Mr. Frear. My recollection is that those three streams averaged 
about 4.000 tons of commerce outside of the timber which is carried. 

The Chairman. The reports are available to any member of the 
committee, and you will find it in detail in either the second or third 
volume. 

If there is no objection, we will proceed with the next item. 

Indian River, Saint Lucie Inlet, Miami Harbor (Biscayne Bay), and liarbor 
at Key West, Florida : For maintenance, $6,000 ; completing improvement of 
Miami* Harbor, $160,000: Provided, That the work proposed under the project 
adopted by the river and harbor act approved July twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred 
and twelve, mav be done by contract if reasonable prices can be obtained ; in all, 
$166,000. 

Col. Xewcomer. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the point has been 
raised as to the amounts carried by boats and rafts, I happen to have 
the second volume before me, and that indicates 

The Chairman (interposing). You are referring now to the item 
for the Altamaha, Oconee, and Ocmulgee Kivers? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes. On the Altamaha the total by boats was 
8,770 tons, by rafts and lighters 67,993 tons. On the Oconee the 
total by steamboats was 19,906 tons, and the amount of lumber rafted 
was 22.019 tons. On the Ocmulgee the total b}^ steamboat was 19,886 
tons, and by raft and lighters about 13,700 tons, so there was quite a 
considerable proportion carried by boats. 

Mr. Frear. Of that which was carried by boats on the Altamaha 
2,014 tons consisted of crossties, hardwood blocks 1,000 tons, and, of 
course, that takes out nearly one-half the commerce on the Altamaha. 
On the Oconee there was 13,725 tons of oak blocks, which brings it 
down practically to the figures I gave. This is found on page 2281 
of the report. 

Col. Newcomer. But it was not rafted. 

Mr. Frear. Xo; but it might have been carried by barges or an}^- 
thing like that. 

Col. Newcomer. It is the work we are doing which makes it possi- 
ble to move the barges, of course. The rafting is done mainly on the 
tides or freshets, and, of course, to a certain extent, the movement 
of boats is done in the same way, but we need the improvement 
mainly for the movement of boats. 

Mr. Frear. There is nothing here to indicate ho^v it ^vas carried. 
There were two steamboats operated on the Oconee River during the 
year 1915, neither of which ran on a regular schedule. One boat 
made 110 trips. It does not state the size of the boats. Colonel, 
would any of the commerce here be duplicated by reason of the com- 
parative location of the streams? 

Col. Newcomer. I think not, but I do not knoAV. The records 
should show. 

Mr. BooHER. May I ask whether crossties are not an important 
part of commerce ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir ; it is important to the people who handle 
them. 

Mr. BooHER. And it is considered important for that? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; very important; and crossties now, on 
account of the value of them, are shipped much more by barge than 
by rafting, as formerly. 



68 mVER AI^D HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The Chairman. The next item is — 

Indian River, Saint Lucie Inlet, Miami Harbor ( Biscay ne Bay), and liarl)or 
at Key West, Florida; for maintenance, $6,000; completing improvement of 
Miami Harbor, $160,000: Provided, That the work proposed under the project 
adopted by the river and harbor act approved July 25, 1912, may be done by 
contract if reasonable prices can be obtained ; in all, $166,000. 

Mr. Frear. It was thought necessary and desirable to put that in 
this bill, I see, Colonel. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. At Miami the locality has cooperated 
to a great extent by building terminals, and there has been a fulfill- 
ment of the conditions imposed. We consider it very desirable to 
afford accommodations on that part of the coast of Florida. As you 
know, it is a very long coast without any commercial facilities, and 
it is very desirable to give them. 

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon the committee took a recess until 
2 o'clock p. m.) 

after recess. 

The committee met, pursuant to the taking of a recess, at 2 o'clock 
p. m. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we will proceed with the next item : 

Tampa and Hillsboro Bays, Saint Petersburg Harbor, Hillsboro and ISIanatee 
Rivers, Florida : For maintenance, $66,500 ; for improvement of Hillsboro Bay 
in accordance with the report submitted in House Document Numbered Thir- 
teen hundred and forty-five, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session, and subject to 
the conditions set forth in said document, $300,000 ; in all, $366,500 : Provided, 
That nothing in this act, nor in the act approved June twenty-fifth, nineteen 
hundred and ten, entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction, 
repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for 
other purposes," shall be so construed as to prevent the use of any part of the 
Ybor Estuary zone for industrial or other legitimte purposes when the same 
is not needed for commercial uses, nor to exclude the building and operation 
of a railroad or railroads by private parties or railroad companies under such 
rules and regulations as the Secretary of War may prescribe, subject to the 
right of the city of Tampa to construct and operate a municipal railroad on 
said estuary zone as set forth in said report. The Secretary of War is hereby 
authorized to prosecute the work of improvement on the existing project for 
Saint Petersburg Harbor, in accordance with the modified conditions recom- 
mended by the Chief of Engineers and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and 
Harbors in the report printed in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document 
Numbered Six, Sixty-fourth Congress, second session. 

Colonel, will you kindly explain this item to the committee and 
the necessity for it? 

Col. Newcomer. The first important item, of course, is for the 
further improvement of Hillsboro Bay, the harbor of Tampa. We 
considered that there Avas a special importance in this case, due to 
the fact that practically all of the phosphate rock of Florida which 
is used as fertilizer comes from this port, and they are very much 
hampered now by the fact that these ships can not go out carrying full 
loads. They have a 21-foot project, and it is proposed to give them 
a 27-foot ]n'oject. They asked for a 30-foot project, but after con- 
sidering the matter, the department recommended it be increased to 
27 feet, and it is proposed to give them 27 feet, which is the same as 
the Mobile Harbor has for about the same tonnage of commerce. 
The fertilizer element is what we might call the especially urgent 
feature at this time. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 69 

Mr. Hflbert. Is there a naval station there? 

Col. Xewcomer. Xo, sir. 

Mr. SwiTZER. I think that practically all the prosphate rock comes 
from there, except some from Tennessee, I believe. 

The Clerk. Eighty-seven per cent of the phosphate in the United 
States is produced in that district. 

Mr. SwiTZER. That is ni}^ recollection. 

'Sir. Dies. Does that embrace the Tennessee field ? 

The Clerk. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Dies. There is more produced, then, in Florida than in Ten- 
nessee ? 

The Clerk. Yes, sir; 87 per cent of the entire production of the 
United States. 

Mr. Booher. I think this item includes the items found on page 
20 of the original bill doAvn to Apalachicola Bay on page 21. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; I think that is right. It includes some 
other improvements that are not on that page simply on account of 
the grouping. 

The Chairman. They are maintenance items ? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes; that is all. The significance of the second 
item authorizing the work in St. Petersburg Harbor to be carried 
on in accordance with the later recommendation is on account of the 
fact that the situation there is changed. The original plan for the 
improvement of St. Petersburg Harbor provided for an entrance 
channel to.be constructed b}^ the Government and an inner basin to 
be constructed b}^ the locality. They found, after beginning that 
work, that they wanted to modify quite radically their plans for 
the inner basin, on account of getting ultimately a better terminal 
proposition. 

]\Ir. Booher. Col. Xewcomer. 3^011 left out of this bill, of course, the 
Senate amendment? 

Col. Xewco3ier. Yes; for Sarasota Bay. 

Mr. Dlpre. And also eliminated the continuing contract which the 
House inserted ? 

Col. Xewco3ier. Yes, sir; on the proposition that this bill would 
not carry any continuing-contract authorizations. 

The Chairmax. If there are no further questions, we will proceed 
with the next item : 

Saint Johns River, Florida, Jacksonville to the ocean, opposite the city of 
.Jacksonville. .Tacksonville to Palatka, and Palatka to Lake Harney, Lake Cres- 
cent and Dunns Creek, Deep Creek, and Oklawaha River. Florida : For mainte- 
nance. §335.000. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is all that amount absolutely urgent, Colonel? 

Col. Xewcomer. The greater part of that is required for the jetties 
at the mouth of the St. Johns River, and it is urgent to repair them. 
The maintenance of that channel depends upon the integrity of the 
jetties, and they have gone down a good deal at the outer ends, and 
also one of the shore connections is considerably lowered. 

^Ir. HuLBERT. Could not that be cut now. in view of this emer- 
gency ? 

Col. Xewcomer. We haA'e not made any effort to cut any of these 
propositions for maintenance, because they were gone into very 
carefully before and we considered them a reasonable allowance 
for the purposes. 



70 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The Chairman. If there are no further questions, we will proceed 
with the next item : 

Kissimmee, Caloosahatcliee, Orange, Anclote, Crystal, Withlacoochee, and 
Suwannee Rivers, Charlotte Harbor, Sarasota Bay, and Clearwater Harbor and 
Boca Ceiga Bay, Florida : For maintenance, $11,000. 

Colonel, is there any statement you desire to make with reference 
to this item? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think there is' anything of special note 
there, unless some Member desires to ask some question about it. 

The Chairman. It is maintenance? 

Col. Neavcomer. It is all maintenance. 

The Chairman. And necessary? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The next item is : 

Removing the water hyacinth, Florida : For the removal of the water hya- 
cinth from the navigable Avaters in the State of Florida, in so far as it is or may 
become an obstruction to navigation, $10,000. 

Mr. BooHER. Colonel, I want to ask a question about the water hya- 
cinth. Wo have a water weed in my country which is called the water 
lily. Is this the same thing as the water lily ? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think it is the same thing as the water 
lily. 

Mr. BooHER. The water lily, you know. Colonel, grows up with big 
Avide leaves, and then a stem runs up and has a big yellow bloom on 
it, and it is a very pretty flower. • 

Col. Neavcomer. I know the floAver, but I think this is a different 
proposition. I have never been in the South to see this Avater hya- 
cinth. We have it not only in Florida but in Louisiana. 

Mr. Taylor. Is it not just the ordinary water lily? 

Col. Neavcomer. I do not think so. 

Mr. Taylor. Does it grow from seed? 

The Clerk. It propagates from the roots, as I understand. In the 
spring floating masses form AA^hich it spreads rapidly. It can be 
propagated from the seed. 

Col. Neavcomer. I knoAV it spreads A^ery rapidly and groAvs in such 
large quantities as to block boats. 

The Chairman. I Avould suggest that if the members of the com- 
mittee Avant any information about the Avater hyacinth Mr. Dupre, 
of Louisiana, can probably tell them all about it. 

Mr. Dupre. I knoAv it is a great evil in our part of the country. 
As I understand, it is an entirely different sort of plant from the 
Avater lily. It propagates very much more rapidly, and it herds to- 
gether, so to speak, until it really bridges a stream, and it is neces- 
sary from time to time, in order that these streams be kept navi- 
gable, that the dredgers, Avhich this appropriation contemplates the 
use of, should be sent up there to clear the thing out. It Avas thought 
at one time that the application of certain chemical processes Avould 
be helpful, but that has not proved a success, and its removal is de- 
pendent practically on the use of dredges. I knoAv that because I 
have it in my oAvii district and there is continual demand on me to 
have a dredge sent there to clean it out. 

Mr. Booher. They obstruct navigation, do they ? 



EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 71 

Mr. DtrpRE. You can almost walk across the thing. The roots 
get down so deep in the water and they are so closely connected that 
you can not see the water at all. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we will proceed with the next item: 

Carabelle Bar aud Harbor, Aiialachicola, Saint Joseph, and Saint Andrews 
Bays. Apalaciiicola and Cliipola Rivers, and channel from Apahichieola River 
to Saint Anch-ews Bay, Florida ; Flint River, Georgia, and Chattahoochee River, 
Georgia and Alabama: For maintenance, $77,500; continuing improvement of 
Apalachicola River, including the cut-off. Lee Slough, lower Ghipola River, and 
upper Chipola River from Mariauna to its mouth, $18.000 ; in all, $95,500. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Colonel, what is the immediate urgency of continu- 
ing the improvement of the Apalachicola Eiver at this time? 

Col. Xewco^eer. The Apalachicola River, you knoAv, is the outlet 
of the Flint and the Chattahoochee and there is quite a little com- 
merce there, not onW to Apalachicola Bay but by means of a con- 
necting canal to St. Andrews Bay, and there is one bar at Blounts- 
town on the Apalachicola River which has been giving a great deal 
of trouble and that is where the improA^ement money is proposed to 
be spent. 

Mr. HutBERT. What is its relation to the exigency Ave are limited 
to in making up this bill, which I understand, so far as continuing 
jDrojects is concerned, is dependent upon the question of national 
defense ? 

Col. Neavcomer. The amount that is inA^oh^ed here for continuing 
improvement is quite small, and the obstruction there is very impor- 
tant as affecting all that commerce. I think it is a very Avise ex- 
penditure of money to make. It is a commercial proposition. I do 
not know that in this case there is any special military feature in- 
A^olved. Of course there are naval stores Avhich come from all these 
streams to a greater or less extent. I do not knoAv that they are 
specially involved there. It is simply an outlet for the commerce 
of this region, Avhich has very poor rail facilities. 

The CHAIR:^rAN. Colonel, a^ou regard all these items of maintenance 
as urgent and necessar}^? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We will take up the next item: 

Holmes and Blackwater Rivers, Florida, Choctawhatchee, Escambia, and 
Conecuh Rivers, Florida and Alabama, the narrows in Santa Rosa Sound, and 
Pensacola Harbor. Florida : For maintenance, $9,500. 

Col. Xeavcomer. There is no special note about that. 

Mr. HuLBERT. It is all urgent? 

Col. Xeavcomer. It is required for maintenance. 

jNIr. HuLBERT. Will any part of this money be spent on the Holmes 
River? 

Col. Xeavcomer. About $1,000, as I recall it, at the mouth of the 
Holmes RiA'er. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is there any commerce on the Holmes River noAv? 

Col. Xeavcomer. Oh, yes. The project provides for Avorking up 
the Holmes RiA'er for a considerable distance, but we haA^e suspended 
Avork except at the mouth, because that is the most important point, 
and Ave are limiting the Avork to that point. There is quite a large 
amount of products and naval stores Avhich ccme out of this country. 



72 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATIOK BILL. 

The Chairman. The next item is: 

Mobile Harbor and bar, and channel connecting Mobile Bay and Mississippi 
Sound, Alabama. For maintenance, $115,000. 

Mr. Gray. Colonel, I would like to ask you several questions. I 
will first ask this question for information : How many new or con- 
tinuing contract propositions are proposed in this bill? Have you 
that information at hand ? Of course, I could look over the bill and 
ascertain, but I thought probably j^ou had the information at hand. 

Col. Newcomer. It is my impression, Mr. Gray, that there were 81 
new projects originally carried in the bill as it went to the Senate 
from the Senate committee, and I think there are 27 included in this 
bill. 

Mr. Gray. Twenty-seven new projects? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes; practically one-third of them are retained. 
That is the statement made to me. I have not verified it myself. 

Mr. Gray. Of those that you have brought in in this tentative bill^ 
which ones do you consider the real emergency propositions of the 27 ? 

Col. Newcomer. I have indicated, of course, in a number of in- 
stances the particular feature in each case as we came to it. I think 
in every case so far I have indicated the feature that appealed to us 
as having special urgency. For instance, Tampa Bay Harbor, where 
they have only 24 feet draft, carry a heavy tonnage; the tonnage in 
that case being fertilizer, which is a matter of special importance. 

Mr. Gray. I am simply asking this as a matter of comparison. 
You really consider that all the projects you recommend in this bill 
are emergency propositions? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gray. It is a fact, is it not, that the Government has spent 
millions of dollars on the Tombigbee River and its tributaries which 
extend into the mineral district of Alabama? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Gray. What do you consider the real purpose of this great 
expenditure of money? 

Col. Newcomer. To get the coal out. 

Mr. Gray. What was the i;eal purpose of this great expenditure of 
money ? 

Col. Newcomer. The proposition, as I have always understood it, 
has been to give access to the coal fields. They have there very ex- 
tensive coal fields, and the important proposition involved was to 
give access to them from the seaboard. 

Mr. Gray. And for armor plate and other things that go into the 
building of vessels? 

Col. Newcomer. If they chose to ship it that way; but I question 
whether it would be done. 

Mr. Gray. Why? 

Col. Newcomer. For the simple reason that we do not, as a matter 
of fact, find in practice that traffic of that kind will go by rail and 
then be transferred to boats to be carried a few hundred miles and 
be transferred again. In other words, if it could go through, or if 
you had a canal connecting the Birmingham district with the Black 
Warrior system, then it is possible that it might be icheaper by water. 
Of course, I do not mean to say that it is not possible to do it that 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 73 

way, but we have not been expecting to see shipments of these heavy 
things by water unless there is water at the point of origin. 

Mr. Gray. Leaving out the river proposition, would not the failure 
of the Government to provide a sufficient depth of water in the chan- 
nel prevent dead-weight cargoes from being handled economically 
and effectively from the Birmingham district through the harbor and 
out into the open sea ? 

Col. Newcomer. That is very true. 

Mr. Gray. Well, it is necessary to export this stuff, is it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; it will probably go out, or a good deal 
of it. 

Mr. Gray. Some of it will be exported. 

Col. Newco^eer. It was expected that coal from Alabama would 
go out not only through the Mobile Harbor but also through Pensa- 
cola and New Orleans. Those were the three points that were con- 
sidered to be the principal points. Of course it can go through those 
ports now. I suppose you are referring to the Mobile project. 

Mr. Gray. Yes. 

Col. Newcomer. The Mobile project has recently been extended 
from 23 feet to 27 feet. It was only a year ago, or, possibly, a year 
and a half ago that they secured the 27-foot project, and there is now 
a favorable recommendation before Congress for a 30-foot project 
there. That item was included in the last river and harbor bill, and 
we considered it an important matter. However, we have found that 
there is some question as to whether the 30-foot project should be 
taken up at this time, so near to the time when the 27-foot project 
was provided, and without having had much experience to show to 
what extent they would utilize that. It has been only within the 
last two or three years that they could go in there with boats draw- 
ing more than 23 or 24 feet. Now, to what extent they are utilizing 
that 27-foot channel I do not know, and, of course, the present cir- 
stances are not favorable to the development of that situation. 

Mr. Gray. Some of those new projects that you put in the bill can 
not be completed under four years? It will take four years to com- 
plete them, will it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. It probably will. 

Mr. Gray. Then, how would you meet the immediate needs on 
those projects? I simply suggest that as a matter of comparison, and 
I am not trying to take away any of those appropriations. 

Col. Newcomer. Of course, the full benefit would not be obtained 
until the projects are completed, probably, but we may be able to get 
certain facilities before that time. 

Mr. Gray. In making preparations for war, what material would 
3^ou think that the Government was most in need of for building 
boats — both warcraft and commercial transports? That, of course, 
is a practical question. 

Col. Newcomer. Just at present, of course, they are proposing to 
utilize lumber most extensively. They are proposing to build wooden 
ships. 

Mr. Gray. And they would have to have a good deal of iron and 
steel, would they not ? 

Col. Newcomer. Undoubtedly they would like to have steel ships 
also, and they would want to build them as rapidly as possible. 



74 EIVER AND HARBOE APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. Gray. Don't you think that iron and steel, and especially lum- 
ber, can be handled more cheaply by water than by rail? Really, is 
not that the fact ? 

Col. Newcomer. Under comparable conditions; yes, sir; if the 
water is accessible. 

Mr. Gray. If not, we ought to abandon the improvement of these 
waterways. 

Col. Newcomer. If the tonnage is accessible to the water, that is 
true. 

Mr. Gray. They are absolutely taking those products out of the 
sides of the banks and are throwing them on barges at some places 
above Tuscaloosa. I am referring to coal. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gray. And that is necessary, is it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gray. You spoke of the manufacturing plants — what about 
lumber products in vast quantities, both oak and pine, along this 
river ? 

Col. Newcomer. They are extremely important. Of course, there 
is a great deal of lumber coming out of Mobile, also out of Gulfport 
and Pascagoula. 

Mr. Gray. What about the immense cement beds there in the Dem- 
opolis section ? Would not cement be used very extensively ? 

Col. Neavcomer. Of course, so far as they have made preparations 
to develop it. They have, as I understand it, one plant there ; but I 
do not know how extensively they manufacture cement. There are 
undoubtedly great resources there, but they are mostly undeveloped. 

Mr. Gray. If those things could be furnished cheaply and expedi- 
tiously by this means, it would not be unwise to continue this improve- 
ment, would it? Would not that be considered an emergency, if we 
needed those things ? Would not that be considered as an emergency 
proposition ? 

Col. Newcomer. Of course ; but whether there would be any neces- 
sity of giving an additional 3 feet of depth at Mobile or increasing 
the depth from 27 to 30 feet is another question. As I understand it, 
that is the proposition you have in mind. Of course a depth of 27 
feet carries a very good tonnage. Most of the tramp steamers, or a 
great many of them, can carry a full cargo on that depth. It is bet- 
ter, of course, to have 30 feet, because 30 feet would take nearly all 
of the steamers. Some steamers will draw more than that, but I 
suppose that 95 per cent of the tonnage in New York Harbor comes 
in on 30 feet draft or less. Of course, here you have a harbor where 
you can meet things fairly well with your 27-foot project. I do not, 
of course, question the immediate desirability of having 30 feet. 

Mr. Gray. As a matter of fact, is not this river system considered 
to be the second in importance in this country? It is second, prob- 
ably, to the Mississippi River and its tributaries. 

Col. Newcomer. I question that. I do not want to depreciate the 
importance of this system. 

Mr. BooHER. Is it your intention, then, to advise the abandonment 
of the 30-fo()t project? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; I would like to see that in the bill, as 
well as these other things that have been eliminated from the bill. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 75 

Mr. Ht'LBERT. Is this 27 feet depth in the bay, or does it extend 
some distance up the river? 

Mr. Gray. It is throug:h the channel. 

Col. Xeavcomer. It extends np'the river a short distance. 

Mr. HuLBERT. How far? 

Col. Xewco3ier. a few thousand feet along the harbor front. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Then ^^ou have a greater project depth there than 
in the East River. 

Col. Xewcomer. There would be. I think the present project 
depth in East River is 26 feet. 

Mr. HuLBERT. It is 26 feet, and that is only about 65 per cent 
complete. 

Col. Newcomer. We propose a project depth of 35 feet in the bill. 

Mr. Hulbert. But you limit that to two points. I was in sym- 
pathy with the suggestion made by Mr. Gray, because unfortunately 
there are certain ports along the Atlantic and Gulf that have not 
been improved proportionately with other ports. 

Mr. Savitzer. Which do you consider the most important ? 

Mr. Hulbert. Considering the fact that the State of New York 
has had to build the $160,000,000 State barge canal at its own ex- 
pense. I think it is more important. That links up the Great Lakes 
with the Hudson River. 

Mr. Gray. Col. Newcomer, when this bill was prepared, it was 
felt that, in view of the fact that Mobile could not be finished up 
as a new project for quite a number of years, the present accommo- 
dations would answer every reasonable purpose other than for the 
exportation of coal. 

Col. Neavcomer. I do not think that we considered particularly 
the clause that you have interjected there about the length of time 
required to complete Mobile. It was simply a question of wdiether 
it was urgently necessary to take it up at this time. I do not think 
that it would take any longer in the case of Mobile than it would 
lake in the case of Tampa to complete the project. That was not 
the deciding consideration at all. It was simply thought that a 
depth of 27 feet does make fairly adequate and reasonable pro- 
vision for the commerce there. 

Mr. Gray. Is it not a fact that a great deal of fertilizer is coming 
from South America into the port of Mobile? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know about that. 

Mr. Gray. You are not informed as to that? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. 

Mr. Gray. So that the question of time in making these improve- 
ments did not figure in it? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; I did not sa}^ that. I said that in con- 
sidering Mobile we did not throw it out because of the time involved. 
That was not the proposition there. I think we have abandoned any 
number of projects and recommended a number of projects where 
the time of completion is far in the futin-e, but we hope to get 
results from them in the near future that Avill be of value. Take 
that case of the East River, for instance, where the project is one 
involving the expenditure of many millions of dollars. What we 
need now is to get a practicable channel through there as soon as 
we can. 



76 EIVER AND HAEBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. HuLBERT. But you are taking that up for military purposes? 

Col. Newcomer. For both military and commercial purposes. 

Mr. HuLBERT. The commercial necessity in East River is around 
(he dock approaches, and you are not making any provision for them 
15 1 all. 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think that they need it so much. There 
is a very large reef there covering a large portion of the eastern 
shore of Manhattan Island, which, of course, is cut off, but nobody 
ever proposes to establish deep-draft docks at that point. There are 
many places that are fairly accessible to the docks and wharves, and 
the people who build these wharves usually provide the channels in 
the vicinity. 

The Chairman. Just in order to get the record complete, I will 
make this statement : I find that in Tampa Bay the commerce for 
the calendar year 1915 was, as Mr. Frear has stated, 1,829,510 tons, 
while the commerce of Hillsboro Bay Avas 1,251,027 tons for the same 
year. 

Mr. Hulbert. If I may be permitted, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
to put in the record at this time the figures showing the tonnage in 
the East River for 1915. That tonnage was 74,178,177, having a 
value of $4,192,206,408. 

The Chairman. The next item is — 

Alabama River, Alabama, and Coosa River, Alabama and Georgia : Coiitimi- 
ing improvement and for maintenance, $50,000. 

Are there any questions on that item? If not, we will proceed to 
the next. 

Tombigbee River, Alabama and Mississippi. For maintenance from mouth 
to Demopolis, Alabama, $30,000, and from Demopolis, Alabama, to Walkers 
Bridge, Mississippi, $10,000. In all, $40,000. 

Mr. Frear. Are these the same amounts that M^ere in the last time. 
Colonel ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. May I revert to the preceding item, Mr. Chairman, 
and ask Avhat the particular urgency is for continuing the improve- 
ment included in the amount of $50,000 ? 

Col. Newcomer. The continuing improvement in that case applies 
more particularly to the building of wing dams and things of that 
kind, which, of course, afford a better maintenance of the channel. 
It is a work that, practically, you might say, is a maintenance propo- 
sition and involves the building of these additional works. And 
$50,000 is considered about the minimum amount that will take care 
of that work for a year. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is there any difference in the character of the neces- 
sity for opening up that ledge of rock in the Coosa Kiver and taking 
out the rock at Macombs Dam Bridge in the Harlem River, so as to 
provide a uniform depth of 15 feet? 

Col. NE^^'coIMER. I do not think substantially there is any differ- 
ence. Of course you ought to have your full project depth. 

Mr. HuLHERT. Could not this as well be eliminated as the item of 
$250,000 for a similar improvement in the Harlem River was elimi- 
nated ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; I think not. The Macomb Dam work is 
now being taken up, as I imderstand, Avith funds on hand, so that 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 77 

YOU can get an additional depth through. Of course this improve- 
ment, .like the Alabama, Chattahoochee, Flint — all of those involve 
the open-channel improvement, which is a more or less difficult 
proposition in this way, that the low-water flow is usually inade- 
quate to provide a really adequate channel depth, and the conse- 
quence is that in order to permit their navigation to the best effect 
we have to keep snag boats in operation there, do more or less dredg- 
ing, and build wind dams so as to get the best result we can. It is 
a continuous proposition which is not very satisfactory but the com- 
merce involved seems to be sufficient to justify caring for it in this 
way. 

The Chairman. The next item : 

Pascag-oiila Harbor, Mississippi : Contiiuiiiig improvement and for mainte- 
nance of channels throngli Horn Island Pass, Mississippi Sound, Pascagoula 
River, and Dog River, $113,000. 

Mr. Gray. Now, I do not want to object to that at all, under- 
stand, but what are the specific needs for the little harbor there in 
the Pascagoula River? 

Col. Xewcomer. That is a case where they have only a 17-foot 
project, and it is a lumber port. Seventeen feet, of course, is a 
rather inadequate depth for lumber shipment. They have to send 
out a great deal of their lumber to the Gulf; as a matter of fact, they 
have to load it on lighters in order to get it on the deeper-draft 
boats. 

Mr. Gray. As an emergency proposition, why is it any more an 
emergency than to get lumber through the port of Mobile? That 
is what I am speaking of. I know it is an advantage and I think 
we ought to have it ; I am not kicking against that.' 

Col. Xewcomer. Don't you see, it is a more difficult thing to get 
lumber out of a 17-foot port than it is out of a 27-foot port. 

Mr. Gray. I see that, of course. 

Col. Xewcomer. Lumber vessels draw usually anywhere from 20 
to 25 feet ; that is, the run of the seagoing lumber boats. 

Mr. Gray. Is that the principal industry there? 

Col. Xeavcomer. Lumber is practically the only industrj^, as 1 
understand it. 

Mr. Dtjpre. And naval stores. 

Col. Xeavcomer. Yes; they have naval stores, as I understand. 

Mr. Frear. Is that for the one or two mills there near the en- 
trance, or what is that for, Colonel ? 

Col. Xewcomer. I do not know the number of mills involved in 
that case. That is the outlet, you know, of the Leaf, Chickasahay, 
and Pascagoula Rivers. It is quite a lumber territory, but I do not 
know how many mills there are down there at Pascagoula. I sup- 
pose there are several. 

Mr. Frear. Out of 102,000 tons, on page 2,400 of the report, 
12.000 are slab; 75,000 are lumber and timber, in round numbers; 
5,968 are crossties. That makes a little over 90,000 tons of timber 
products out of 102,000. 

Col. Xewcomer. It is practicallv all timber products. 

Mr. Frear. This item is putting $113,000 in that harbor. What 
Avas put in last year, Colonel ? 

Col. Xewcomer. I do not recall. 



78 mVEK AND HAKBOR APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

Mr. DupRE. The same thing. I have both amounts here, and 
they are the same. 

Mr. Frear. I mean the last year, 1916. 

Col. Newcomer. You mean the last appropriation. I will have to 
look that up. It is $80,000. 

Mr. Frear. How much— $80,000 ? 

Col. Newcomer. $80,000. 

Mr. Frear. Now, let me understand. In 1916 we appropriated 
$80,000 for this 12,000 tons of commerce outside of wood products, 
and there is an additional 113,000 in this bill ; and we have already 
appropriated $1,413,000. 

Col. Newcomer. No; but we did not spend it for the 12,000 tons 
outside of the timber products ; we spent it for all of the tonnage of 
the port and the other products that are shipped in boats. 

Mr. Frear. What is the nature of the improvement ; does it run up 
the river for a mile, or what? 

Col. Newcomer. I beg pardon? 

Mr. Frear. Does that improvement run up a mile or so, or what is 
the character of it? 

Col. Newcomer. It runs up into the Dog River on which the mills 
are situated; yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. Have these people who are there paid anything toward 
t];iese improvements? 

Col. Newcomer. They have been required to do certain coopera- 
tive v\^ork — furnish terminals. There was originally a condition im- 
posed, under which this project on which we are now working would 
require a contribution of a certain amount of money by them and 
also the construction of certain terminals. Congress subsequently 
withdrew the requirement for a contribution of an equal sum from 
them to that provided by the Government. 

Mr. Frear. That was stricken out by the Senate. 

Col. Neavcomer. But it still required the other condition about the 
terminals and provided that the amount that the Government was 
to spend should be applied to furnish such depth as it could. In 
other words, as I recall now, the total expenditure was in the neigh- 
borhood of $300,000. or something like that. They were to provide 
half and we half; and then Congress released them from the condi- 
tion of supplying that sum of money and authorized the expenditure 
of the Government's share to get as much of the project increased 
depth as they could. 

Mr. Frear. The engineers recommended this contribution, did 
the}^ not, and then Congress took it out of the hands of the engineers, 
that is, the Sennte did, as I now recollect; it struck that provision 
out. 

Col. Newcomer. I do not recall all of the details of the transac- 
tion, but I do know this, that the matter was referred back to the 
Board of Engineers once or twice for consideration as to vxhether 
those conditions might not be waived. As to just what action was 
taken, whether the final action was taken by Congress without ref- 
erence to the recommendations of the department, or not. I do not 
know; I think it was. 

Mr. Frear. May I ask why the engineers asked for that contribu- 
tion, because this has a bearing on all cases of contribution? 



KIVER AND HAEBOR APPROPEIATION BILL. 79 

Col. Newcomer. This appealed to us as did a number of other cases 
on the Pacific coast, for instance, where one industry is the princi- 
pal industry affected and Avhere, therefore, it is a simpler proposition, 
apparently, to get cooperation on a just basis where there is only one 
industry alfected, because those people are usually fcAV in number 
and we can get at them and insist on their contributing; so that at 
that time the department felt that was a desirable condition to im- 
pose. As I say, I do not recall all of the details now. 

Mr. Frear. That is as I understand the reports. 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DuPRE. May I ask you a question? Will you indicate to me 
what reason there is why a stream or a harbor, on which mainly 
lumber is transported, the lumber being export lumber, should not be 
developed as well as any other stream? 

Mr. Frear. As long as I am put on the stand as an expert 

Mr. DuPRE. I do not mean to be offensive, but that has been run- 
ning through your mind apparently all day and I wanted to hear 
why 3^ou thought it should not be deepened." 

Nr. Frear. On the stream on which I live there has been more 
lumber shipped and logs shipped than on the Mississippi Eiver ac- 
cording to the statements of the men who live there. That, of course, 
Avould be twenty times the amount that goes out of the Pascagoula 
Harbor, which is very small, comparatively. One hundred thousand 
dollars has been spent on that river in all that time, and the reason 
for that is, referring to the carrying of these lumber products, which, 
of course, are valuable, that they haye been carried on the small 
boats and moved on lighters, as the colonel suggests is done here. 
Xow. here is the record and, as I understand, I think the record shows 
that this Pascagoula River carries up to two or three mills and the 
Army engineers recommended that a contribution should be had, 
but it was stricken out (and we can all form our own judgment why) 
in one of the Houses, and now the Government is required to pay this 
difference Avhich, out on the coast, is required and insisted upon to be 
conti'ibuted : that is, it is out on the Pacific coast. But in this case 
it has been abandoned and the engineers' recommendation overruled. 
That is as 1 understand it. 

Mr. DuPRE. I did not have in mind the question of the abandon- 
ment of the local contribution feature, because that applies to this 
particular proposition; but all along the line of your remarks, it 
seems to me that has been underlying. Now, possibly, is not the 
reason why only $100,000 has been spent on your stream is because 
you have a very good stream and did not need to spend more than 
that to develop it properly? 

Mr. Frear. Oh, no; it is because the timber is all carried down 
on the small boats. Now. just let me give you, right here on the fol- 
lowing page, an illustration of what my meaning is: On page 2401, 
on the Chickasawha, the o\'erhanging trees felled and cut up number 
5,896 and the bushes and all the stumps and snags cut there reach- 
ing 18,203, different obstructions in just that one river for that small 
amount of timber and lumber carried into Pascagoula Harbor. I 
sjDcak of that because it shows while this is all largely for the benefit 
of those two or three mills there and could be easily carried on small 
boats, an expenditure reaching $1,400,000 has gone into that project. 



80 EIVER AND HAKBOR APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

and that they have been able to avoid the contribution which was- 
urged by the engineers. 

Mr. BooHER. Can 3^ou give us the value of the lumber products 
that have gone out of that stream in all those years ? 

Mr. Feear. No ; I could not give you the value of that which has 
gone out of the Mississippi and St. Croix, but I think on the compara- 
tive basis of the shipments made in the last year, it was easily^ 
ten dollars to one; and here is $113,000 estimated for this river for' 
this one year. 

Mr. BooHER. Perhaps your river up there is not like the southern 
rivers, is not like this river; it does not wash and shoal. These 
southern rivers have sandy soils and they form bars and shoals, arid 
they have to be taken out or we would not have any transportation 
at all. 

Mr. Frear. My thought in bringing this out was that the engineers 
were right in urging the contribution and that it ought to have been 
followed up, because it is a tremendous expense upon those local saw- 
mills there. 

Mr. Kettner. Col. Newcomer made the statement, if I understood 
him aright, that on the Pacific coast, where the benefit accrues mostly 
to a single individual 

Col. Newcomer. Industry ; not individual. 

Mr. Kettner. Well, industry. Did you have in mind any in Cali- 
fornia ? 

Col. Neavcomer. More particularly those lumber ports on the coasts 
of Oregon and Washington. 

Mr. Kettner. I know California always donates her share, and 
we have not a single port in California that I can recall where the 
benefit of river and harbor improvement would accrue to a single 
corporation. 

The Chairman. The next item: 

Giilfport Harbor, Miss. : Continuing improvement and for maintenance of 
ancliorage basin at Gulfport and channel tlierefrom to tlie ancliorage or road- 
stead at Ship Island and for the improvement and maintenance of channel at 
Ship Island Pass, $80,000. 

The next item is: 

Pascagoula, Wolf, Jordan, Pearl, and East Pearl Rivers, and Biloxi Harbor, 
Miss. : For maintenance, $10,000. 

Next item: 

Yazoo River and tril)iitaries. Miss. : For maintenance, including Yazoo, Talla- 
hatchie, Coldwater, and Big Sunflower Rivers, Tchula Lake, Steele, and Wash- 
ington Bayous, I^ake Washington, and Bear Creek, $20,000. 

Next item: 

Passes at the mouth of -the Mississippi River : Continuing improvement and 
for maintenance, $1,825,000. 

Mr. Hulbert. AVhich pass is that intended to cover? 

Col. Newcomer. Mainly the Southwest Pass, and some of it goes to 
the South Pass also. 

Mr. Hulbert. Do you know what proportion will be applied to 
Southwest Pass? 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 81 

Col. Newcomer. Practically. I should say, over 90 per cent. As 
I recall, about $150,000 is required in South Pass, and the rest goes 
to the Southwest Pass improvement — the 35-foot project. 

Mr. Freak. Is that amount large enough? I remember you made 
a recommendation for more. 

Col. Xewcomer. We did ask, as I remember, for a little over 
$2,000,000, but it was concluded in the consideration of this bill be- 
fore that this Avould probably answer for one year ; and I think that 
was probably right. It is desirable to expedite that work there as 
much as possible, because the jetties at South Pass are becoming more 
liable to damage, and of course we want to get Southwest Pass de- 
veloped as fast as we can, and we require these inner jetties and the 
bulkheads as soon as we can get them. 

The Chairman. Southwest Pass is the newer pass? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Let me ask 3^ou: AYhy is it that such a large pro- 
portion of the number of vessels going in and out of the Mississippi 
River continue to use the South Pass ?• 

Col. Newcomer. Because that has been the more reliable channel. 
While it is not as deep sometimes as the other, it is a more reliable 
channel, and, of course, the pilots are familiar with it. And the 
work done at the other pass — the jetties were placed too wide apart, 
and the channel depends on dredging to too great an extent, and the 
dredges have not been able to keep the pass clear. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Southwest Pass? 

Col. Newcomer. Southwest Pass. 

Mr. Hltlbert. The South Pass accommodates about 90 per cent 
of the shipping, does it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. Actually I presume it does carry that much, be- 
cause the other project has really not been provided as yet. 

Mr. HuLBERT. It is completed, is it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. Oh, no, sir. 

Mr. HuEBERT. It is substantially completed? 

Col. Newcomer. No; that is just the point. They found they 
could not get it by the original plan. 

Mr. Frear. In that connection, Colonel: Will that South Pass 
ever be able to carry much commerce ? 

Col. Newcomer. The South Pass? 

Mr. Frear. Yes. 

Col. Neavcomer. Of course. South Pass now carries practically 
jjll the commerce. 

Mr. Frear. I understand, but the purpose is to enlarge the South- 
west Pass. 

Col. Newcomer. That is right ; and it is expected, of course, when 
we get a 35-foot depth there, it is more than probable we can get 
along without the South Pass. 

Mr. Frear. The South Pass is not to be abandoned ? 

Col. Newcomer. Oh, no; I judge not. Of course we won't at- 
tempt, at any considerable expense, to maintain a 30- foot depth there 
when we Avill have 35 feet through the other pass, but we will have 
to maintain it until we get the other open. Whether any work will 
be justified later on I do not know. 

Mr. Frear. We have spent about equal amounts on both, haven't we ? 

97510—17 6 



82 RIVEE AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. I really do not recall as to the relative expendi- 
tures. Of course South Pass was first improved at a considerable 
cost, and Ave have now taken up the other one, and we have spent, 
as I recall, something like eight or nine millions on it. 

Mr. Feear. The appropriations have run over ten millions. 

Col. Newcomer. Over ten millions; yes. 

The Chairman. The next item: Bayous Lafourche, Terrebonne, 
Grossetete, Plaquemine, and Teche, La. : For maintenance, including 
Grand Eiver and Pigeon Bayous, $64,000. 

The next item : Waterway from the Mississippi River to the Sabine 
River, La.: For maintenance, $7,000; for completing improvement 
from Mermentau River to Sabine River, Louisiana and Texas, in 
accordance Avith the report submitted in Senate Document No. 705, 
Sixty-fourth Congress, second session, and subject to the conditions 
set forth in said document, $230,000; in all, $237,000. 

Mr. HuLBERT. That is a new project, isn't it? 

Col. Neavcomer. It is a new project; yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. Was that in the last bill ?' 

Col. Neavcomer. That was put in the bill in the Senate. 

Mi*. Frear. But it Avas not in the last bill as it passed the House ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. 

Mr. Frear. Do 3^our engineers recommend that that should be im- 
proved ? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. Did you the last time before the House ? 

Col. Neavcomer. The report had not been prepared at the time the 
bill Avas considered by the House. It Avas an inA^estigation made just 
a few months ago. A situation developed there calling for an in- 
vestigation and I think the Senate Committee on Commerce called 
for a ret^xamination of that project and that investigation Avas made 
and disclosed conditions which indicated the desirability of very 
early work there. We now have a project for a 5 b}^ 40 foot water- 
Avay from the Mermentau to the Sabine RiA^er. The part of it from 
the Calcasieu to the Sabine has been built and they have noAv estab- 
lished some ship3^ards in there and they haA^e also made arrange- 
ments for the shipment of sulphur. There are two sulphur deposits 
in the L^nited States, one here in Louisiana and the other over in 
Texas, and the locality is so much impressed Avith the necessity of 
getting those products out that they have offered to contribute one- 
half of the cost of enlarging the Avaterway from the present size 
of 5 by 40 feet. Avhich ansAvers the purpose of the local tonnage; but 
they need for the greater tonnage a 9-foot depth. 

Mr. Frear. This is under the preparedness program? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. You mean this is urgent as a part of the general 
plan of preparedness — this 5-foot depth? 

Col. Neavcomer. No ; the 9-foot depth. 

Mr. HuLBERT. The}^ Avon't be able to accommodate an}^ vessels of 
the Navy? 

Col. Neavcomer. No : but they could carry the sulphur out and also 
provide an outlet for the boats they are noAv building. 

Mr. DuPRE. In addition to the local proposition which the localities 
undertook, the Union Sulphur Mining Co. has agreed to complete, 
at its oAvn expense, its connecting waterway? 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 83 

Col. Ne\vco3ier. Yes. 

Mr. DupRE. Requiring an expenditure of some $250,000, vrhich will 
enable the transportation of sulphur direct from the mine to Port 
Arthur. 

Mr. Dies. Whereas it now goes by rail. 

Mr. DuPRE. Yes ; and has to be transshipped there. 

Before Ave leave that, I note Avith sorroAv the omission from this 
item the appropriation included in the last bill of $100,000 for an 
inland. AvaterAvay from the Mississippi to Teche. I am of the same 
mind on that as Mr. Gray Avas this morning in regard to Mobile, but 
I assume from Avhat you said that these omissions are made Avithout 
regard to the merits of the projects left out? 

Col. Neavcomer. We did not consider that of such urgency, although 
it is very desirable as to require an appropriation at this time. 

The Chairman. The next item: Lake Pontchartrain, Pass Man- 
chac, Bogue FalaA^a, Tchefuncta, Ponchatoula, Natalbany, Blood, 
TickfaAv, and Amite Rivers, and Bayou Manchac, La. For mainte- 
nance, $4,000. 

Col. Neavco^ier. In connection Avith this item of Lake Pontchar- 
train, where we only propose funds for maintenance, there Avas in the 
bill as prepared before an item for a further improvement of Lake 
Pontchartrain by giAing an 8-foot outlet at its eastern part, out to 
Lake Borg-ne and Mississippi Sound. We left that out in compiling 
this bill because it had not been presented to us in a Avay Avhich indi- 
cated an}' special urgency at this time. It Avas a proposition, I think, 
reported nearly four years ago, and Ave were not aware of any recent 
development indicating any special urgency. There Avas brought to 
our attention yesterday, hoAveA^er, the fact that there has been estab- 
lished already a ship^^ard there, w^hich is building 1,500-ton boats 
and which is going to build 2,500-ton boats, w^hich probably would 
not be able to get out — that is, the larger boats — unless this channel 
is provided. And there is another shipyard which is going to be 
built on Lake Pontchartrain for the building of these bigger boats 
if this Avork is provided. A telegTam has been sent to the district 
officer to get information on that point, and as soon as Ave haA^e it Ave 
Avill present the information to the committee. 

Mr. Frear. What is the fact there ; it has only a A^ery small depth, 
hasn't it? 

Col. Newcoimer. Most of the communicating AvaterAvays haA^e a 
project depth of 7 feet, but of course the lake itself has something 
more than that, 

Mr. DuPRE. It has an aA^erage depth of 15 feet. 

Mr. Frear. This ncAv project Avas to giA^e a depth of 15 feet? 

Col. Neav COMER. No, sir ; onl}^ 8 feet at the outlet, where it connects 
with' the Mississippi Sound. 

^Ir. Frear. Would it be the dut}^ of the Government, if the ship- 
yards are built in inaccessible places, to then dredge up to those 
places, or wouldn't it be the duty of the shipyards to build at places 
Avhich are already accessible? 

Col. Xeavcomer. Of course, a proposition for that depth, I believe, 
Avas made before the shipyards Avere built, and they have been able 
to get these small 1,500-ton boats out. But as I understand they 
noAv propose to build these larger ships, and they need the deeper 



84 RIVEE AND HAEBOR APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

channel. The proposition does not involve the expenditure of much 
money ; I think there is only $ 32,000 involved there for this channel. 
It was included in the bill, and I presume those parties located there 
expecting the channel to be dredged to that depth. 

Mr. Frear. I examined that at the time that project was recom- 
mended. Do you think that $32,000 project will be sufficient to keep 
that channel open. It was put right across the lake, as I remember ; 
not along the side — it is right in the center. 

Col. New-comer. Oh, no ; it is not in the center at all ; it is at the 
eastern end, at the outlet of the lake into the Mississippi Sound, 
between 

Mr. Frear. And what is the length ? 

Col. Newcomer. I think it has a length of only a few thousand 
feet. 

Mr. DuPRE. It is between 1 and 2 miles, where there was a depth 
varying from 3 to 6 feet. 

Mr. Frear. It seems to me it\is like Albemarle Sound or any other 
place, that a wash will follow with a change of winds, because it has 
not a well-defined channel. 

Col. Newcomer. Of course, there will be further expenditures for 
maintenance involved. It will require about 10 per cent of this 
amount per annum for maintenance — 10 per cent of the estimated 
cost of $32,000. 

Mr. DuPRE. I will ssij this, that a favorable report had been sub- 
mitted to Congress before those, shipbuilding industries were located 
there, so that they went up there with the hope that Congress would 
subsequently do its duty. 

Mr. Frear. I remember it was in last year, and I will ask the re- 
porter to strike out my remark about that. 

The Chairman. The next item : 

Bayous Vermilion, Nezpiqiie, des Cannes, Plaquemine Brule, and Queue de 
Tortue, Mermentau River, and Calcasieu River and Pass, Lousiana : For con- 
tinuing improvement and for maintenance, including channel, bay, and passes 
of Bayou Vermilion, and tributaries of Mermentau River, $51,000. 

Mr. Hulbert. What is the continuing improvement provided for 
there, Colonel? 

Col. Newcomer. That is the Bayou Vermilion. I think there is a 
question which came up when this bill was under consideration be- 
fore as to Avhether certain work which ought to be done on the upper 
river had been done or whether it was maintenance. We had it in 
as maintenance, under the impression it had been done at one time 
and allowed to lapse on account of lack of need for it at the time, but 
now there are a great many sugar plantations and industries like that 
creating a need for it, and we put it in as maintenance. But to clear 
up that ambiguity as to whether this was new work or maintenance 
Ave have put in here " continuing work and maintenance.'' 

Mr. Hulbert. Is it urgent now as a matter of commercial necessity 
or naval necessity? 

Col. Newcomeir. It is a commercial necessity — ^to take care of the 
commerce of this region. 

Mr. Frear. That is an increase over the amount provided for last 
year, is it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. I think there was an increase made m 
the Senate. 



RIVEE AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 85 

Mr. Fke,4r. It was $46,000 in the House bill. 

Mr. DuPRE. There is $5,000 more. You will see Calcasieu River 
and Pass has been added to it, and $5,000 has been allotted for that 
purpose. 

Col. Xewcomer. That is right. I did not see that. 

The Chairman. The next item : 

Removiug the water hyacinths, AUibama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas : 
For the removal of tlie water liyacintli from the navigable waters in the States 
named in so far as it is or may become an obstruction to navigation, $20,000. 

Mr. Frear. Colonel, do we receive any aid in keeping out these 
water hyacinths from Florida or Louisiana, or the other States, or 
from private parties, or does the Government do all of that ? 

Col. Xeavcomer. I do not understand anything has been done by 
Florida, but I knoAV in Louisiana the localities do afford considerable 
help in this way, that these growths tend to accumulate and in that 
way finally clog the entire stream, and they have made arrangements 
down there with the people in that locality that the guards, and so 
forth, along the river shall keep these things in motion so they will 
move out with the tide and not accumulate and block up any one 
point. There is work of that kind being done. 

Mr. DuPRE. And, generally, to look after the booms. 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes; the booms for catching them. They have 
contributed in that way. Of course, it is a very important matter to 
these people, because they are practically absolutely dependent, espe- 
cially those engaged in the plantation industry, upon these streams 
for the handling of their traffic. 

Mr. Frear. That is the reason I was asking if they assisted in 
keeping them out of the rivers. 

Col. Xewcomer. They do assist in that way. I do not know 
whether the}^ appropriate any definite sums for it. 

The Chair3ian. I have just been given some information oil that 
by ^Ir. Brooker. He says on the Withlacoochee River there is a 
very large cooperation by the localities. 

The next item: 

Atchafalaya River, Louisiana: For maintenance, $20,000. 

Xext item: 

Sabine River, Louisiana and Texas, Sabine-Neches Canal, Harbor at Sabine 
Pass and Port Arthur Canal, and Johnsons Bayou, Louisiana and Texas : For 
maintenance, $110,000 ; continuing improvement of Sabine Pass and Port Arthur 
Canal, $3,000,000; in all, $410,000. 

^Ir. Hulbert. What is the urgent necessity. Colonel, for continu- 
ation of the improvement of Sabine Pass and Port Arthur, in this 
ull? 

Col. Newcomer. There is an enormous export of oil made from 
that place, and those boats, of course, like all others, are increasing in 
- ize, and it is important that they be allowed to carry full loads. 

Mr. SwiTZER. This does not include that logging proposition in the 
Sabine Eiver? 

(Jo\. Xewcomer. Xo, sir: that has been cut out. 

The Chairman. Xext item : 

Red and Sulphur Jtivers, Arkansrs and Texas, and Cypress Bayou, and 
waterway between Jefferson, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana : For mainte- 
nance, $5,000. 



86 EIVEE AND HAEBOE APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

Next item: 

Galveston Harbor, Galveston Channel, Port Bolivar Channel, Texas City 
Channel, and Houston Ship Channel, Texas : For maintenance, $480,000. 

Mr. Frear. Those are lumped together. What are the specific 
sums allotted to each, in order that we may have an understanding 
about that? 

Col. Newcomer. The Galveston Harbor, maintenance, is $50,000; 
Galveston Channel, $100,000 ; Texas City Channel, $50,000 ; and Port 
Bolivar Channel, $30,000 ; and Houston Ship Channel, $250,000. 

Mr. Frear. Did we receive contributions for that Houston Ship 
Channel, or do we receive contributions now? 

Col. Newcomer. Not for maintenance. 

Mr. Frear. Not for maintenance? 

Col. Newcomer* No, sir. Of course, they contributed to the con- 
struction of the dredges which we use in maintenance, but they do not 
contribute funds. 

The Chairman. The next item: 

Port Aransas, Texas: Continuing improvement and for maintenance, $100,000. 

Next item: 

Analniac Channel, mouth of Trinity River, Oyster and Clear Creeks, and 
Cedar, Chocolate, Turtle, Bastrop, Dickinson, Double, and East Bay Bayous, 
Texas: For maintenance, $33,300. 

Mr. Frear. That is the only place where the Trinity River figures, 
I see? 

Col, Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The next item: 

Waterway from Galveston to Corpus Christi and channel from Pass Cavallo 
to Port Lavaca, Texas: for maintenance, $90,000. 

Mr. Frear. That is that canal, isn't it ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. That 5-foot canal? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. Is that very necessary ? What is that — a case of naval 
necessity, or what? 

Col. Newcomer. Oh, no, sir ; that is simply 

Mr. Frear. A commercial necessity? 

Col. Newcomer. It is considered so — a commercial necessity. Of 
course, part of it is more than 5 feet. The channel through the 
canal from Galveston down to Aransas Pass is a 5-foot project; from 
Aransas Pass across to Corpus Christi it is a 12-foot project. Those 
localities have attempted to use it and do use it to some extent. 

Mr. Frear. There is not very much commerce on that ? 

Col. Newcomer. Not very much. 

Mr. Frear. And this is just for maintenance? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. About how long is that canal ? 

Col. Newcomer. I judge it is about 180 miles — that is, I mean the 
whole distance between the points. Of course, it is not all im- 
proved and not all worked over. 

Mr. Frear. You mean it is not all connected? 

Col. Newcomer. It has a sufficient natural depth over a great deal 
of the distance. Matagorda Bay, for instance, has a natural depth 
of more than 5 feet. 



KIVEE AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 87 

Mr. Dies. There is nothing between Port Arthur and Galveston. 
Col. Xewcomer. Xo: there is nothing there; this rims from Gal- 
veston to Corpus Christi. 

The Chairman. The next item : 

Freeport Harbor. Texas: For iiiainteuaiice of nunitli of Brazos River,' $66,000 ; 
for improvement in accordance with tlie report su'omitred in House Document 
Numbered Fourteen hundred and sixty-nine, Sixty-third Congress, third session, 
and subject to the conditions set forth in said document, $150,000; in all, 
$216,000. 

Mr. HuLBERT. A'Miat did you consider. Colonel, was the special 
urgency for taking on this new project just now? 

Col. Xewcomer. This is a sulphiir proposition. The shipments of 
sulphur have increased ver}^ largely and they find themselves very 
much hampered, indeed, to get out Avith the 18- foot depth which they 
have now. 

Mr. HrxBERT. And this provides for what depth ? 

Col. Xewcomer. Twenty-four feet. 

Mr. Hulbert. Will a 24-foot depth be sufficient ? 

Col. Xewcomer. That is all they have asked for at the present 
time. They claim that with that increased depth, for the range of 
tonnage available, they could handle the tonnage. 

Mr. Hlxbert. Where is most of this sulphur transported ? 

Col. Xeavcomer. I do not recall. It is delivered along the coast, 
but just where I do not know. 

Mr. CosTELLO. I presume the increased demand for sulphur is 
practically due to the war. The war practically debarred any im- 
portations along that line ? 

Col. Xewco3ier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CosTELLO. And we have resorted to our own natural resources 
so as to get sulphuric acid and the other supplies for the making of 
munitions ? 

Col. Xewcomer. That is right. Of course the Italian supply of 
sulphur and the Spanish supply of pyrites is now practically cut off 
and we have to rely upon these two deposits — the one in Louisana 
and the other here on the Brazos River in Texas — for our supply of 
sulphur. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Prior to the war it was not a profitable transaction 
to operate these mines ? 

Mr. Dies. Oh. yes it was. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Xot to a very great extent. But since the war, they 
have been able to do a profitable business there and the probability 
is that with the increased facilities and the finances Avhich they will 
get in due to the present increased demand, that they will be able 
to continue after the war has closed, so that we are building up 
a very important industr}- by making this improvement. 

The Cpiair3ian. The next item : 

Red, Black, Ouachita, Tensas, Bonef. and Salina Kivers. and Bayous Macoii, 
Bartholomevr. D'Arbonne, and Corney, Arkansas and Louisiana : For mainte- 
iiance, $65,000. The balance of appropriations heretofore made for the construc- 
tion of Lock and Dam Numbered Seven, Ouachita River. Arkansas and Louis- 
iana, is hereby made available, in the discretion of the Secretary of War, for 
the construction of Lock and Dam Numbered Five. 

Mr. Frear. What is the purpose of the transfer, Colonel? 
Col. Xewcomer. It has been found it would be very much more 
advantageous to build Lock and Dam Xo. 5 next rother than to 



5» RIVEE AND HAEBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

build Lock and Dam Xo. 7. Locks and Dams Nos. 2^ 3, and 4 are 
practically completed and give navigation up to Monroe. Six and 
8 have been completed, and if we put in 5, we will connect up 
with pool 6 and give it an outlet to the Mississippi. It is possible 
that No. '-7 will not be required, as changes in 6 and 8 and dredging 
may carry the channel to Camden. 

Mr. Frear. AVhat is the total amount you estimate for the project? 

Col. Newcomer. We do not have any revised estimate for the en- 
tire improvement. The last appropriation carried, I think, from 
$240,000 to $250,000, for Lock and Dam No. 7, which we now propose 
to apply to 5, and I think it will take probably in the neighbor- 
hood of $300,000 more to complete that dam. Now, it is expected 
certain changes can be made in 6 and 8 and combined with dredg- 
ing above, so that we may not have to build any more locks 
and dams. The district officer has been investigating that propo- 
sition but he has not submitted a report to the department and of 
course we are not able to speak wdth personal knowledge upon that 
point. But he has expressed that opinion, however, himself. The 
project involved, according to the original plan, the construction of 
three more locks and dams, Nos. 5, 7, and 9. 

Mr. Frear. LTp to this time there is very little commerce down on 
that river? 

Col. Newcomer. Very little ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. And we haA'e spent over $4,000,000, as I remember? 

Col. Newcomer. That is because, unfortunately, it was carried 
out in this way. They avouIcI first put a lock and dam in Louisiana 
and then another one in Arkansas; then another lock and dam in 
Ijouisiana, and another one in Arkansas; and the consequence is that 
these have been built isolated in this Avay and do not give an}^ con- 
tinuous communication. We now have at the Louisiana end con- 
tinuous navigation up to Monroe, La., and the work certainh^ ought 
to be carried continuously from that point up, because the outlet is 
into the Red, Black, and Mississippi Rivers. 

Mr. DuPRE. Has not the final completion of the dam at the mouth 
developed considerable navigation from Monroe clowr^ to New 
Orleans? 

Col. Neavcomer. We haA^e not any report indicating the result of 
that yet. As a matter of fact, No. 3, I think it is, is just being com- 
pleted, but I do not laiow definitely about that. 

Mr. DuPRE. I happen to knoAV there has been an additional steam- 
ship line put on since this end Avas available. 

The Cpi airman. The next item : 

Arkansas River, Arkansas and Oklalionui : For maintenance by snag-ging 
operations, $35,000. 

Next item: 

Black and Current Rivers, Arkansas and Missouri; White, Saint Francis, 
and I/Anguille RiA'ers, and Blacktish Bayou, Arkansas: For maintenance, 
$28,700. 

Next item : 

Cumberland River, Tennessee and Kentucky: For maintenance above Nash- 
ville, $5,000 ; continuing improvement below Nashville, $632,000 ; in all, $637,000. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Is the necessity for continuing the improvement 
below Nashville commercial ? 



RIVEK AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 89 

Col. Newcomer. That is mainly commercial; yes, sir. You have 
already authorized there the beginning of the construction of several 
locks and dams, and we usually build the locks and abutments of the 
dams fii*st, and then additional money is required in order to put in 
the remaining work to make that available. This is to give an outlet 
from Nashville to the Ohio River; and, of course, we have already 
completed the improvement to some extent above Nashville. 

Mr. Frear. The new project has been left out? 

Col. Neavcomer. The new project above Nashville has been omitted. 

Mr. Frear. Is that as important, do you think, as the one here — 
of comparative importance with the one above Nashville ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir ; we did not consider it so. 

The Chairman. The next item : 

Tennessee River, Tennessee. Alabama, and Kentncky : For maintenance and 
continuing improvement, $401,000. 

Mr. Frear. AYliat is the character of the continuing improvement 
contained in that, Colonel ? 

Col. Neavcomer. This is for the work principally on the open 
channel which is in progress on that river. You see, we have the 
section above Chattanooga ; then Chattanooga to Riverton and River- 
ton to the mouth. From Riverton to the mouth the funds on hand 
will probably be sufficient to complete. And between Florence and 
Riverton there is remaining work to be done, and then the dam at 
Bellefonte below Chattanooga. The lock and dam work is being held 
up by reason of the failure so far to comply with certain conditions 
imposed on the localities to handle the flowage damage. There was a 
proposition to build one high dam or two dams of smaller lift below 
Hales Bar. and when Congress authorized the change from one high 
dam to two low ones it provided that the localities should pay the 
cost of the flowage rights or damages, which we found on investiga- 
tion to be much more expensive than first anticipated for the high 
dam. 

Mr. Frear. This is not for power purposes in any way ? 

Col. Neavcomer. This does not involve that except as the high dam 
might afford an opportunity for some power development. 

The Chair3ian. The next item : 

Toledo, Port Clinton, Sandusky, Huron, Vermilion, Lorain, Cleveland, Fairport, 
AslUabuhi, and Conneaut Harbors, Ohio: For maintenance, $132,000, completing 
improvement of Lorain Harbor in accordance with the report submitted in 
House Document Numbered Nine hundred and eighty, Sixty-fourth Congress, 
first session, and subject to tlie conditions set forth in said documents, $16,500. 
F(ir improvement of Cuyahoga River. Cleveland Harbor, in accordance with the 
report submitted in House Document Numbered Seven hundred and seven. Sixty- 
third Congress, second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said 
document, $5,000 : Proridrd, That the Government's share in the cost of the 
improvement in accordance with the final plans adopted shall not exceed 
$400,000: in all, $1 53.500. The unexpended balances of appropriations hereto- 
fore made and authorized for the improvement of Conneaut Harbor, Ohio, are 
hereby made available for completing improvement in accordance with the 
i-eport submitted in House Document Numbered Nine hundred and eighty-three, 
Sixty-fourth Congress, first session. 

^Ir. Frear. May I ask there, Colonel — it says that the Govern- 
ment's share in the cost of the improvement in accordance Avith the 
finnl plans adopted shall not exceed $400.000 — what portion of this 
fund goes into that project that is mentioned? 



90 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATIOIT BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. Only $5,000. The situation there is this, that the 
Cuyahoga River carries now a considerable commerce for a number 
of steel mills and other industries located along that stream, but the 
channel is very. tortuous and the bigger boats can not get up to those 
mills. The city of Cleveland has in contemplation a project which 
involves a number of cut-offs, a very expensive work, and involves 
the destruction of a number of plants, in order to clear the way 
for us, and a considerable cost, ot course, for dredging, bulkheads, 
and so on. An examination of that was authorized by Congress, 
and as a result of our investigation a report Avas made to CongTess 
stating that a definite plan at that time could not be prepared on ac- 
count of certain difficulties they had encountered about rights of 
waj" and things of that kind. And they recommended an appro- 
priation of $5,000, which w^ould enable the Government to cooperate 
with the city in devising plans which would be practicable for mak- 
ing this improvement. It came out in that investigation, for in- 
stance, that the dredging would, apparentl}^, be the proper share for 
the Government to assume, putting all other expenses, for the pur- 
chase of land rights, bridges, and bulkheads, amounting to a very 
much larger sum, on the locality, and that expense of dredging, as 
I recall, was something in the neighborhood of $390,000. So that 
when this item was considered by the Senate committee they in- 
serted in the bill as it was submitted to the Senate a statement that 
would serve notice on the community that in any plan that might 
be developed they would not want the Government considered to be 
obligated to go beyond such an expenditure. 

Mr. Frear. That Avould be $390,000 more? 

Col. Newcomer. Provided the plan is adopted along this line. 

Mr. Frear. Isn't this the same project that was struck out from 
the 1915 bill in the House? I think that is the one where it was 
claimed it was for the benefit of private parties that this extension 
was to be made. 

Col. Neavcomer. I do not recall at all about that; I did not have 
any connection with this at that time. I hardl}^ think it could be 
for the interest of private parties. There is this feature, of course, 
that heretofore the improvement of the Cuyahoga River has been 
done entirely hj the locality; the Government has confined its ex- 
penditures to the outer harbor — not entirely to the outer harbor, 
because we had a project on the river up to the first bridge. But 
above that point, where this work is expected to be done, it has been 
handled by the State, and they felt in making this very elaborate 
improvement, which involved a much larger cost, that the Govern- 
ment ought to cooperate, and it was thought it would be well if the 
Government cooperated in that Avay. But this project involves noAv 
only an expenditure of $5,000, and Congress is to make further ap- 
propriation as estimates are submitted to it hereafter. 

Mr. Frear. Was that in the bill last year? 

Col. Neavcomer. No, sir; only in the bill as passed by the Senate 
committee. It was not in the House bill. 

The Chairman. The next item : 

Ohio River. Continuing improvement by the construction of locks and dams 
with a view to securing a navigable depth of nine feet. .S.j.OOOOOO. Upon the 
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers and the approval of the Secretary of 
War the project for the improvement of the Ohio River may be so modified as to 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 91 

permit the consti'iiction of one lock and fixed dam to replace locks an<l dams 
numbered one and two, should such modification be deemed desirable and 
advantageous. 

Mr. HuLBEKT. Would that be a costly proposition, Colonel? 

Col. Newcomer. No; it will probably be a matter of economy, in 
this way: Lock and Dam No. 1 was built many years ago. They 
began the construction of that dam in 1875 and completed it in the 
eighties, and it is a movable dam and, like all dams of that type, 
of course it is subject to deterioration of a more rapid character 
than a fixed dam. It has been partially made obsolete also by chang- 
ing this from a G-foot to a 9-foot project. Dam No. 3 was raised 3 
feet. In doing that, the change was made after the foundation of 
the dam was built, and we simply changed the movable parts; for 
instance, we lengthened out the wickets and props and things of that 
kind, so that we do not have a normal type of constructicm there. 
And Dam No. 2 is deteriorating rather rapidly, and the people of 
Pittsburgh who insisted originally that no dam of a fixed character 
should be placed below the harbor, on account of getting out with 
the coal boats, are now quite content to have these two replaced by a 
fixed dam and probably to have a number of others in the upper 
river if the situation should justify it in the future. 

Mr. Savitzer. And making a larger harbor, too, wouldn't it? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir — throwing this dam further down the 
riv^r than Dam No. 1. 

Mr. Frear. Can you just give a statement of how many dams have 
been built there — those that have been built and those that are being 
constructed ? 

Col. Newcomer. The dams are practically completed down to No. 
18, and work has been authorized on all down as far as No. 30. 
Below that the alternate dams have been begun down as far as Louis- 
ville, and then there are two begun below Louisville. In other words, 
out of a total of 53, it is my impression about 35 have been begun. 

Mr. Frear. The work is over half finished, do you think — the 
locks and dams? 

Col. Newcomer. Well, I should judge approximately half finished. 
I think, as a matter of fact, the last annual report gives it as 45 per 
cent completed. 

Mr. SwiTZER. A number of dams below No. 18 have been finished — 
No. 26, for instance. 

Col. Newcomer. Oh, yes; several of them are finished. No. 37 is 
finished and, of course. Dam 41 is finished, but work is still in 
progress in the canal at Louisville. There are several of them nearly 
finished below there and we are now getting quite a stretch of con- 
tinuous slack water. The upper river is finished and Ave are connect- 
ing up that section with the Muskingum, Little Kanawha, and Great 
Kanawha Rivers. 

Mr. Frear. It has helped navigation there thus far, do you think ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. There is one thing I think I ought to 
mention here, vhich I do not believe I did before, with reference to 
these larger projects like the Ohio, upper Mississippi, and Missouri. 
I supose the committee are all familiar with the fact that in those 
thi'ee projects the Government committed itself, by enactment of 
law, to a certain definite program of construction. ' On the Ohio 
liiver, for example, it provided in 1910 for the completion of the 
project in 12 years, and the same way on the upper Mississippi, and 



92 BIVEE AND HAKBOK APPROPEIATION BILL. 

on the upper Missouri it provided in 1912 for completion in 10 
years. In other words, it has provided for the completion of all 
those three by 1922. Unfortunately, from our point of view, Con- 
gress has taken the view that this means completion of the ap- 
propriations by that time and not the completion of the work; in 
other words, that instead of providing the money fast enough to 
complete the w^ork by 1922, it means the making of all appropria- 
tions by that time. In these cases the department has not felt free to 
eliminate items where Congress itself has pleged itself to a certain 
program of construction. 

Mr. Frear. How much has been spent, generally speaking, on the 
Ohio Eiver itself, if you know ? 

Col. Newcomer. In the neighborhood of $30,000,000. 

Mr. Frear. You mean on this project? 

Col. Newcomer. On the new project, yes. There has been more 
than that, of course, spent on all work, including the previous pro- 
ject — something like $45,000,000 all together. It is going to take, as 
I recall now, $33,000,000 more, including this $5,000,000 to complete 
it accordance with the estimated cost. The total work will cost, in 
round numbers, $75,000,000. 

Mr. Frear. Will it be completed within the estimates, do you 
think? Is that the indication? 

Col. Newxomer. It is a pretty rash thing to say that under the 
present conditions. We were hoping it would; but of course under 
the present unsettled conditions we could not clo it. There are sev- 
eral features that Avill enter into the work that may, however, help 
it. One is this, that in the lower river, for instance, we may find it 
practicable and preferable to substitute the use of dredging below 
Dam 48, which is the lowest one now, just below the Green Eiver. 
Below that point it may be found practicable not to build dams but 
rely upon dredging. The river is very wide and we are faced with 
conditions which are more difficult to handle because of the large 
amount of sand and its movement in sand waves. That point has 
not been decided definitely. Of course, if we do omit the dams clown 
there, that will be a very substantial saving in the cost of construc- 
tion. 

Mr. Frear. That will take out from seven to five dams? 

Col. Newcomer. Something like that; yes, sir. 

Mr. Switzer. Then, didn't you eliminate one 

Col. Newcomer. We eliminated No. 42 and we expect to eliminate 
No. 39 above Louisville. 

Mr. Frear. And to reach the same results by dredging? 

Col. Newcomer. That is what we hope on the lower river. That 
matter w.as investigated by the same board that reported in favor of 
the dams as against dredging; but on further consideration of that 
matter we are inclining to the opinion that it may be found advisa- 
ble to substitute dredging on that lower stretch of the river. 

The Chairman. The next item : 

Grniul Marjiis. Mnrquette, Marquette Bay, and Ontoiia.u-on Harbors, and 
Keweenaw Waterway, Michigan; Ashland and Port Kins Harbors, Wisconsin; 
Dnlnth-Snperior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin; Agate Bay and Grand 
IMarais Harbors, Minnesota. For maintenance, .$175,000; conipletinji' improve- 
ment of Ashland .Har])or in accordance with the modified ])]ans in the report 
submitted in House Document NumbcM-ed Sixto'.Mi Imndred and ninetv-6Msiit, 
Sixty-fourth Conti^ress, second session, .1^0.000; in all. $185,000. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 93 

Mr. Fi^EAR. Could you give the amounts, in a general way, without 
referring to vour notes, for those different harbors ? 

Col. Newcomer. The Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge, $10,000 
for maintenance ; Ashland Harbor — that item ha^ not been changed ; 
Duluth-Superior Harbor, maintenance, $45,000; Keweenaw^ Water- 
way. $105,000. 

Sir. Frear. Was that the KeweenaAv ? 

Col. Newcomer. Keweenaw Waterway was $105,000. That has 
hitherto been maintained under the indefinite appropriation for op- 
erating and care, but it w^as deemed advisable to put it in the regular 
river and harbor appropriation, because it has no lock in it. I think 
that covers all of the items. There is no change at all ; it is simply 
a grouping together and summing up of the items. 

The Chairman. The next item is : 

Sniiit Joseph Harbor and River, Saiigatiiek Harbor and Kalamazoo River, 
South Haven, Holland, Grand Haven, Muskegon, White Lake, Ludington, 
Manistee, Portage Lake. Arcadia, Frankfort, Charlevoix, and Petoskj^ Harbors, 
and Grand River. Michigan : For maintenance. $112,050 ; continuing improve- 
ment of Manistee Harbor, $28,700 ; in all, $140,750. 

The Chairman. The next item is : 

Mackinac, Cheboygan, Rogers City, Alpena, Harbor Beach, and Monroe Har- 
bors, Saginaw. Black, Clinton, Rouge, and Detroit Rivers, Michigan : For main- 
tenance, $13,500 ; for improvement of Harbor Beach Harbor in accordance with 
the renort submitted in House Document Numbered Seventeen hundred. Sixty- 
fourth Congress, second session, $100,000 ; in all, $113,500. 

CoJ. Xewcomer. The words " and Detroit " should be omitted from 
that item. 

Mr. Frear. What was the necessity. Colonel, for this improvement 
of Harbor Beach Harbor ? 

Col. Xew comer. That is in order to make that harbor available as 
a refuo'e for the big boats. 

Mr. Frear. Was that in the last bill? 

Col. Xewcomer. I think that was in the bill as it passed the House ; 
yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. What page ? Oh, yes; I see ; it is on page 38. 

The Chairman. Colonel, just to have it in the record, I have had 
a number of letters inquiring about the probable action of the com- 
mittee with regard to the new improvement of Rouge River. 

Col. Xewco:\ier. We did not include that in this hill. 

The Chairman. The next item is : 

Ship channel connecting waters of the Great Lakes between Chicago, Duluth, 
and Buffalo : For maintenance, $185,000. 

Col. Xeavcomer. And if you will please insert after that " includ- 
ing St. Marys River " — I simply Avrote it up at the top of the page 
myself — " including St. Marys River, St. Clair River, the channels 
in Lake St. Clair, and Detroit River, Michigan " ; that makes a better 
grouping than I had before. 

The Chairman. The channel in Lake St. Clair? 

Col. Neavcomer. Lake St. Clair. 

Mr. BooHER. And what other river ? 

Col. Xewcomer. And Detroit River, Michigan. It does not make 
any change in the sum. 



94 BIVEE AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The Chairman. The next item is: 

■ Manistique Harbor, Michigan, Menominee, Oconto, Green Bay, Algoma, 
Kewaunee, Two Rivers, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Port Washington, Milwaukee, 
Kacine, Kenosha, and Waukegan Harbors, Sturgeon Bay and Lake Micliigau 
Ship Canal, and Fox River, Wisconsin : For maintenance, $52,100. The project 
for the improvement of Green Bay Harbor, Wisconsin, is hereby modified to 
include the maintenance of the turning basin at Depere in accordance with the 
report submitted in House Document Numbered One thousand and seventeen, 
Sixty-fourth Congress, first session. 

Mr. Frear. How does that happen to be mentioned especially^ 
Colonel ? Is there any work being done on that now ? 

Col. Newcomer. We have now two projects, one for the Green Bay 
Harbor, which includes a section of Fox River, and then for harbor 
at Depere itself. This is to consolidate them and carry them as one. 

Mr. Frear. There is no work being done on either at this time, is 
there ? 

Col. Newcomer. There is w^ork of maintenance. 

Mr. Frear. This is intended to cover both ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. Eeally the harbor at Depere is simply a 
turning basin at the end of the channel, which is a part of the harbor 
of Green Bay, and they ought to be one project and not two different 
projects. 

Mr. DupRE. Is there not a Cheboygan in Michigan and a She- 
boj^gan in Wisconsin ; is not that correct ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. DupRE, You will notice it .at the bottom of page 19. 

Col. Newxomer. Yes ; that is right. 

The Chairman. The next item is : 

Saint Croix River, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Minnesota River, Minnesota, 
Lake Traverse, Minnesota and South Dakota, Red River of the North, Minnesota 
and North Dakota, Warroad Harbor and River, Zippel Bay, and Lake of the 
Woods, Minnesota : For maintenance, $3,000. 

Mr. Frear. Where are those amounts taken from ? 

Col. Newcomer. I think that is practically all — Warroad Harbor 
and River, $2,000, and Zippel Bay, $1,000. The other items have no 
proposed expenditure. 

The Chairman. The next item is : 

Chicago and Calumet Harbors, Chicago and Illinois Rivers, Illinois, Calumet 
River, Illinois and Indiana, Indiana and Michigan City Harbors, Indiana: For 
maintenance, $115,000; completing improvement of Indiana Harbor, $395,200;. 
in all. $510,200. 

Mr. Frear. What is that last project, Colonel? 

Col. Newcomer. That is the outer^breakwater. 

Mr. Frear. In Indiana Harbor ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. The outer harbor there is being protected 
by a breakwater, and this is for the completion of that work. 

Mr. Frear. Is that a very important project? 

Col, Neav( omer'. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. That has to be finished at this time ? 

Col. Newcomer. It is very desirable to finish it. Of course, you 
know there are very large steel plants at the mouth, having their 
docks right at the opening into the river. 

Mr. Switzer. Is that not near Gary ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes; it is near Gary. 



RIVER AXD HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 95 

Mr. Frear. I remember the question was raised about that by one 
of the rilinois Members the last time, and he criticized it very 
severely. 

Col. Newcomer. They have a very large tonnage of iron ore, par- 
ticularly at this place. 

Mr. SwiTZER. I think his criticism was because the docks were be- 
ing used by some corporation, for the benefit of some corporation. 

Mr. Frear. Yes; that is right. This was not in the last bill, was it? 

Mr. Hulbert. Yes; it was. 

The Chair3ian. The next item is: 

Mississippi River, from the moutli of the Oliio River to and including the 
mouth of the Missouri River : Continuing improvement and for maintenance, 
$350,000. 

Mr. Frear. What is the character of the improvement there ? 

Col. Xeav COOLER. That is for maintenance of the 8- foot channel. 

Mr. Frear. That is just for maintenance? 

Col. Xewcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. That has been established, has it not; that is. com- 
pleted? 

Col. Xewcomer. The project really has not been completed in this 
way. It involves an additional fixing of the channel by means of 
dikes and bank revetments. That work had' been proceeding for a 
number of ^^ars before they found that they can maintain the 8-foot 
depth by the use of dredges. Of course, the project contemplates 
going ahead and putting in these additional revetments and training 
walls or dikes, so as to reduce the cost of maintenance by dredging, 
but under present conditions we thought it would be better not to 
proceed with the project. In other words, the commerce that is on 
that river hardly appeared to justify the expenditure of a million dol- 
lars and more that they had been regularly providing for this im- 
provement for several years, and we find we can maintain the depth 
Avith the dredges, and for that reason we have temporarily discon- 
tinued further operations. 

Mr. Frear. I understand that on 200 miles of that river there has 
been about $18,000,000 spent. 

Col. Newcomer. There has been a very large expenditure made. 

Mr. Frear. That is the one on which Senator Burton said there 
had been more spent than on the entire Rhine Eiver, and the Ehine 
Eiver had 14,000,000 tons, and of course this point of the river is 
insignificant. I think it has altogether 153,000 tons, as given b}^ Col. 
Thompson. 

Col. Newcomer. The tonnage has been diminishing rather than 
growing. At one time there was a substantial tonnage there, but it 
has been diminishing. 

Mr. DupRE. Is that the matter reverted to by Mr. Kenned}^ this 
morning? 

Col. Newcomer. No; this is below the Missouri and the other is 
above the Missouri. That is the next item he is referring to. 

The Chairman. The next item is: 

Mississippi River from the mouth of the Missouri River to Minneapolis, 
Minnesota: Continuing improvement and for maintenance, $1,200. 

^Ir. Frear. That is the one Mr. Kennedy referred to. We spent 
something like $28,000,000 on that, where only one line of boats run 
four months in the vear. 



96 RIVEK AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL.. 

The Chairman. I might mention, for the information of the com- 
mittee, that there is at present quite an active movement in the 
Mississippi Valley States, particularly in view of the national stress, 
to develop water carriers on the Mississippi River and its tributaries. 
A meeting has been called for May 8 and 9, to be held at St. Louis, 
at which the governors of a number of the States expect to be present, 
and also representatives of the commercial organizations, and they 
have been in commtmication with the Chief of Engineers about it. 

Mr. Freae. Do you feel. Colonel, that it is possible to ever secure 
any appreciable commerce on that river until we control the railroad 
rates ? 

Col. Newcomer. I think it will be necessary probably to enforce 
a change in the polic}^ that the railroads have ordinarily pursued in 
the past of not prorating with the boat lines, and steps have already 
been accomplished in that direction. I just saw in the last issue of 
the Railway Review the statement of a decision of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, just recently handed down, requiring a rail- 
road at St. Louis to prorate with the boat line that is running be- 
tween St. Louis and Memphis and New Orleans, on the same basis 
that it prorates with its rail connections. That has been one of the 
difficulties in* the past that has hampered, of course, river traffic. 
For instance, the Kanawha River ships most of its coal, you might 
say, to the Cincinnati market, and a great deal of coal from the 
Kanawha Basin goes to localities that are reached by rail from Cin- 
cinnati. The Cincinnati railroads, or roads leading out from Cin- 
cinnati, charge the local rates to any coal traffic offered them by boat, 
by water carrier, whereas they would receive coal delivered by rail 
connection and prorate with them on a basis that would enable them 
to deliver cheaper than the sum of the local rail-and-water rates. Of 
course, if you require the rail carrier to prorate with the water 
carrier on the same terms he does with the rail carrier, you will have 
competition that will enable the water carrier to do business. 

Mr. Frear. There might be direct competition between water car- 
riers. For instance, there would be between Minneapolis, St. Paul, 
and St. Louis. 

Col. Newcx)mer. We can expect to develop considerable commerce 
on the water between communities along side of the water that do 
not involve rail carriers, but if you are going to get any very large 
development there that will have to be partly by water and partly by 
rail, it is essential to give equal treatment in order to live. 

Mr. Frear. Commerce has decreased about 90 per cent on that 
river. 

Col. Newcomer. It it very much less than it used to be. 

The Chairman. The next item is : 

Mississippi River between Saint Paul and Minneapolis, and between Brainerd 
and Grand Rapids, Mississippi and Leech Rivers, and reservoirs at headwaters 
of Missisippi River : For maintenance, $2,000 ; continuing improvement of Missis- 
sippi nnd Leech Rivers, $50,000 ; in all, $52,000. 

Mr. HuLBERT. None of these last three items have been urged 
except because of their commercial activity ? 
Col. Neavcomer. That is substantially so. 
The Chairman. The next item is: 

Osage and Gasconade Rivers, Missouri, and Kansas River, Kansas : Continuing 
improvement and for maintenance of Osage and Gasconade Rivers, $20,000 ; com- 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION- BILL. 97 

pletiiig iiiiprovemeiit of Kansas River in accordance with the report submitted 
in House Document Numbered Five hundred and eighty-four, Sixty-third Con- 
gress, second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document, 
$10,000; in all, $30,000. 

The next item is : 

Missouri Iliver : For maintenance and contiiniing improvement v^ith a view^ to 
securing a permnnent six-foot channel between Kansas City and the mouth of 
the river. $1,000,000; for snagging and maintenance between Kansas City and 
Sioux City. $35,000; for maintenance between Sioux Citv and Fort Benton, 
$50,000; in all, $1,085,000. 

Mr. BooHER. Now, the maintenance between Kansas City and 
Sioux City and between Sioux City and Fort Benton have been re- 
duced, or are they the same? 

Col. Newco]mer. The maintenance is the same, I think. 

Mr. BooHER. I see; it is the same. 

Xow, the next item, Colonel, is stricken out. I am not fault- 
finding, but I am investigating. Why did you strike out the 
$25,000 for completing that improvement near St. Joseph? 

Mr. DupRE. It is at the top of page 39, line 7. 

Col. Newcomer. Well, we did not consider that as of any sub- 
stantial importance as a commercial or defense proposition. 

Mr. BooHER. Well, don't you think it is very necessary to save 
the work that you have done there now, where the people have paid 
$50,000, and the Government has put in $75,000? 

Col. Newcomer. Well, I do not know to what extent that work 
would be necessary. 

JNIr. BooHER. Here is the situation there, Colonel. You know 
there is about 3 or 4 miles of revetment commencing north and west 
of St. Joseph, and running down to perhaps 2 miles below the city 
of St. Joseph. 

Col. Neavcomer. I knoAv in a general way. 

Mr. BooHER. Now, when they commenced work there to prevent 
the river from going into the lake they did not commence at the 
lower end of the revetment, but just as far down as they possibly 
could, and they built it down there, and it is one of the finest revet- 
ments I ever saw. But if this river begins to cut through here at 
the head of this new work, as it is very likely to do and as it always 
has done, that is going to be an entire loss — that $125,000. I am very 
much afraid that when the June rise comes in the river we will 
lose that revetment.. 

Col. Newcomer. Of course certain work could be done of an emer- 
gency character under an emergency appropriation. We did not 
understand this was work of special importance from the point of 
view of the navigation of the river. 

Mr. Booher. Well, it is not, unless you want to save this $125,000 
that has been put in there. Now, those people are not able to raise 
a dollar more down there. They raised $50,000 for that work. They 
are a set of gardeners, very small farmers, and they could not raise 
another $1,000 to save their necks, and the estimates of your boards 
have always been that it would take $150,000, and the people were to 
raise half of it in the first instance, but they could not do it to save 
their lives. They raised $50,000, and they could not go any further, 
and the Senate released them from the -$25,000, and we made an 
appropriation in the bill and gave them an extra $25,000. I know 
97510—17 7 



98 EIVEE AND HAKBOR APPROPRIATIOlsr BILL. 

that old stream so well that I am afraid the $125,000 will go into the 
river, because when it once commences cutting you know it cuts 
mighty fast when it starts, and it seems to me, although it is not an 
emergency for navigation, and it is not an emergency for prepared- 
ness, yet it occurs to me that it is the very breath of emergency to 
save what you have done there. We have spent $125,000 there, and 
I am afraid now, if you do not connect those two revetment works 
together, that you are going to lose what you have done. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Mr. Chairman, I recall very well the hearing we had 
on that matter, and we had maps here showing the situation, and it 
looks to me, as Judge Booher says, that it is a matter of spending 
$25,000 to save the greater part of $125,000. 

Mr. SwiTZER. There is also grave danger of cutting through as I 
understand it. 

Mr. HuLBERT. If it cuts through, one of the principal towns of that 
section will be left entirely off the river. 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think the department has ever felt any 
grave apprehension about its cutting through in that locality. 

Mr. Booher. Do you know that it went through within 19 feet last 
spring — just 19 feet? 

Col. Newcomer. What I mean is that even cutting into the lake 
does not mean that the river would desert its old course and go down 
that way. We have so many cases where the river does go around. 

Mr. Booher. It formerly ran down through that lake. Colonel. 

Col. Newcomer. At one time it was an old river bed. 

Mr. Booher. It is just a stream of lakes, coming down one after 
another, from St. Joseph to north of Kansas City, within 11 miles 
of Kansas City, and these lakes will not be higher on the other sidie 
of that lake than it is the other way, and the Missouri River does not 
run up ; it goes down, and quite fast. 

Mr. Kettner. Mr. Chairman, can we not submit this or pass some 
sort of resolution to have Judge Booher take it up with the Chief 
of Engineers? 

Col. Newcomer. I will speak to the Chief of Engineers about it, 
if you wish me to do so. We do not object to having the item in 
there, if you wish to put it in, although it did not appear to us to be an 
item that would be justified. 

Mr. Booher. It is only to save the money that the Government 
has put in and these people have put in. Your engineer may be 
right, but every engineer that has made a report on that, except 
the last board, reported that it would go back down the old channel 
of the river, and that it would be below the old channel connecting 
the Missouri River away down below. If it does it, it will destroy 
a lot of very valuable land and property. 

The Chairman. Without objection, if I may interject at this 
point. Col. Newcomer will be requested to look into the matter fur- 
ther and report to the committee to-morrow. 

Col. Newcomer. Very Avell; it is a question of what time you 
want me to-morrow and what time I leave to-night. Of course, I 
will have to get in touch with the Chief of Engineers in the meantime. 

Mr. Booher. I am anxious to save that money, both for the people 
and the Government. 

Mr. Gray. Mr. Chairman, can you not include my little project 
in that? 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 99 

Col. X^wcoMER. I will be very glad to take it up with the Chief 
of Engineers. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the Colonel will be requested 
to take up your project with the Chief of Engineers with the same 
end in view. 

Mr. Frear. I notice there is $35,000 for maintenance from Kansas 
Cit}^ to Sioux City. I want to ask whether that is for preparedness 
or for commerce. According to page 7673 of the report the com- 
merce was 101,822 tons last year, of which 100,335 tons was sand 
hauled 2 miles. That leaves about 1,000 tons. You have spent al- 
ready $3,235,000 on this stretch. I was just wondering whether or 
not that was put in on account of preparedness or on account of 
commerce ? 

Col. Newcomer. I guess it would be a little bit hard to defend it 
on either one of those grounds, except in this way : That it has been 
deemed advisable on that upper Missouri River to keep the snag 
boats going and keep the stream clear. There is a little local move- 
ment of traffic at a number of points, and we want to avoid the ac- 
cumulation of snags blocking the channel and the obstruction of 
the stream in that way, so that wherever there is a tendency or de- 
sire to use the stream they can do so, so far as the natural condition 
of the channel will permit. 

Mr. Frear. That question was just preliminary . to the next ques- 
tion. In view of that fact, I was going to ask. Was the $1,000,000 
between Kansas City and the mouth of the river put in because of 
commercial necessity or preparedness there? 

Col. Newcomer. That, of course, was in order to carry out the pro- 
gram adopted by Congress for the improvement of that stretch within 
a period of 10 years. We have there, however, a navigation company 
in action, transacting business. It is probably doing it on more hope- 
ful lines than anywhere else on our western rivers. In other words, 
they have arrangements whereby they receive shipments on railroad 
sidings, transfer them to boats, and transport them over this stretch 
of the river, and deliver them on cars or railroad sidings at the other 
end of the route. They are handling that in a thoroughly efficient and 
businesslike way. 

Mr. Frear. That is at the present time? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes. 

Mr. Frear. But it is a very small commerce ? 

Col. Newcomer. It is a small commerce. Of course, they can not 
carry a big commerce until we get a better channel, but they have 
begun this business on the promise that if they did put their money 
in it. Congress would go ahead and do the work. 

Mr. Frear. Has the channel been completed above Kansas City or 
Sioux City? 

Col. Newcomer. There has been practically no work above, except 
isolated bits of revetment that were put in. 

Mr. Frear. Was it once cleared up according to the original proj- 
ect? Has it ever been completed according to the original project? 

Col. Newcomer. There has never been any project there, except for 
snagging. We have never had any definite project depth adopted 
there. 



100 EIVER AND HAEBOE APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

The Chairman. The next item is : 

San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo Harbors, California : For main- 
tenance, $45,000 ; completing improvement of San Diego Harbor by dreding area 
"A" in accordance with the project submitted on page fourteen of House Docu- 
ment Numbered Six hundred and forty-eight, Sixty-fourth Congress, first ses- 
sion, as modified in the report printed in Rivers and Harbors Committee Docu- 
ment Numbered Eight, Sixty-fourth Congress, second session, $85,000; for im- 
provement of Los Angeles Harbor in accordance with the report submitted in 
House Document Numbered Eight hundred and ninety-six, Sixty-third Congress, 
second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document, $50,000 : 
Provided, That no expense shall be incurred by the United States for acquiring 
any lands required for the purpose of this improvem.ent ; in all, $180,000. Such 
modifications as may be recommended by the Chief of Engineers and approved 
by the Secretary of War for the plan of silt diversion works adopted by the river 
and harbor act approved July twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and sixteen, for 
the protection of Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, in accordance with the 
report printed in House Document Numbered Four hundred and sixty- two, 
Sixty-fourth Congress, first session, is hereby authorized, subject to the condi- 
tions set forth in said document : Provided, That such modification shall not in- 
crease the total cost of the work. 

Mr. Kettner. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Colonel the 
amount of money estimated for each harbor for maintenance men- 
tioned in this item; that is for Los Angeles, San Diego, and San 
Luis Obispo Harbors? 

Col. Newcomer. San Diego Harbor had an item of $20,000 for 
maintenance, and Los Angele Harbor, $25,000, so that the $45,000 
here proposed is made up of those two items. San Luis Obispo had 
no item for maintenance required. 

Mr. Kettner. I might say, gentlemen, that there is a special 
recommendation sent in by the Secretary of War regarding the mid- 
dle ground, but I do not wish to take that up now with the. colonel. 
Of course, if that should go in, I ask the privelege of bringing it up 
later on. This is a very serious proposition, as we see it. 
. Col. Newcomer. I can state that in his report to Congress, made in 
accordance with its directions, to determine what works of improve- 
ment are needed for the fleet of defense, an item was included for 
San Diego Harbor and consists of widening out the channel on the 
middle ground, at a cost, I think, of something like $69,000. We did 
not include that item, or the one, for instance, for Norfolk Harbor, 
because we considered the improvement in each case to be required 
merely for naval purposes, and it w^as doubtful whether it should be 
provided in such cases in the river and harbor bill. Mr. Kittner has 
jbr ought it to my attention that it may also affect the commercial use 
of that channel, on account of the way this shoal makes out immedi- 
ately opposite the coaling pier, and that interferes with the naval 
vessels when coaling there. I have made a note on that, to look it up, 
to see Avhat the present situation is with reference to our project, and 
so I have nothing further to say at this time. Of course, it has been 
recommended to Congress that this other work should be done, but 
whether it should be in the river and harbor bill is a different propo- 
sition. 

Mr. Kettner. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the same privi- 
lege that was accorded Mr. Booher and Mr. Gray, regarding this 
recommendation that was made by the local engineer opposite the 
coaling wharf at San Diego Harbor. 

The Chairman. I suppose Mr. Kettner has explained what he has 
in mind. Without objection Col. Newcomer will be requested to 



KIVEE A^v'D HAKBOH ArrEOPHlATlOA' BILL. 101 

take that up with the Chief of Engineers, with a view to ascertaining 
whether it constitutes any emergency, and I am sure Mr. Kettner 
has it in mind, that in the event it should not be decided upon as 
practicable, he will w4sh probably a new survey, the authorization 
for a survey there by the ne^t session. 
The next item is: 

San Francisco, Oukhmd, Kichmond, Monterey, and Huniboidt Harbors, Red- 
wood, San Rafael, and Petaluiiia Creeks, Napa River, San Pablo Bay, and 
Siiisun Channel, California : For maintenance, $287,500 ; continuing improve- 
ment of Oakland Harbor, $92,000: Provided, That if in the judgment of the 
Secretary of War the prices received in response to advertisement for bids for 
tlre<lging are not reasonable, so much of the amount herein appropriated as 
shall be necessary may be expended for the purchase or construction of a 
suitable dredging plant; for improvement of Richmond Harbor in accord- 
ance with the leport submitted in House Document Numbered Five hundi-ed and 
fifteen, Sixty-third Congress, second session, and subject to the conditions set 
forth in said document. $100,000: continuing improvement of Humboldt Har- 
bor and Ray, $190,500; in all. $670,000. 

The next item is : 

Sacramento, Feather, San .Toaquin. and Mokeiumne Rivers, and Stockton and 
Mormon Channels (diverting canal). California: For maintenance, $51,000. 

The next item is : 

('Oquille, Coos, Siuslaw, and Yaquina Rivers, Coos. Tillamook, and Nehalem 
Bays, Oregon: For maintenance. .$34,000: continuing improvement of channel 
over the bar at Coos Bay. $70,000 ; in all, $104,000. 

The next item is : 

Cascades and Dalles-Celilo Canals, Oregon, Columbia Rivei* and tributaries 
above Celilo Falls to the mouth of Snake River, Oregon and Washington, and 
Snake River, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho: Continuing improvement and for 
maintenance, .$70 000. 

The next item is : 

Willamette River above Portland and at Willamette Falls, Yamhill and 
Clatskanie Rivers, Oregon, Cowlitz, Lewis, Lake, and Grays Rivers, and Skamo- 
kawa Creek, Washington: P^or maintenance, $48,300; completing improvement 
of AVillamette River around the Willamette Falls at Oregon City, Oregon, in 
accordance with the report submitted in House Document Numbered One thou- 
sand and sixty. Sixty-second Congress, third session, $80,000; continuing im- 
provement of Lewis River, including North and East Fork, $13,500 ; in all. 
$141,800. 

Skamokawa Creek is to be stricken out. 
The next item is : 

Columbia and lower Willamette Rivers below Vancouver, Washington, and 
Portland, Oregon, and mouth of Columbia River, Oregon and Washington : 
Continuing improvement and for maintenance, $1,285,000: Provided. That of 
the funds herein appropriated $6,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, 
may be expended in completing improvement at Cathlamet, Washington, in 
accordance with the report submitted in Hou.se Document Numbered One hun- 
dred and twenty. Sixty-third Congress, first session. 

The next item is : 

VViilapa River and Harbor, Grays Harbor, Chehalis and Hoquiam Rivers, 
Washington: For maintenance. $7,500; for improvement of Grays Harbor in 
accordance Avith the report submitted in House Document Numbered Seventeen 
hundred and twenty-nine. Sixty-fourth Congress, second session, $85,000: Pro- 
vided, That pending the construction of the new dredge authorized any other 
Government dredge that may be available may be used for the deepening and 
maintenance of the bar channel ; in all, $92,500. 



102 RIVEE AND HAEBOR APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

The next item is : 

Puget Sound and its tributary waters, Olympia, Tacoma, Anacortes, and 
Bellingham Harbors, Lake Washington Ship Canal, Snohomish and Skagit Riv- 
ers. Swinomish Slough, waterway connecting Port Townsend Bay and Oak Bay, 
Columbia River between Wenatchee and Kettle Falls, Washington : For mainte- 
nance, $30,000 ; for improvement of Lake Washington Ship Canal in accordance 
with the report submitted in House Document Numbered Eight hundred, Sixty- 
fourth Congress, first session, $200,000 ; in all, $230,000. 

The Chairman. Strike out Anacortes. 

Col. Newcomer. Strike out Anacortes. That name was left in 
by error. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Colonel, practically all of these new projects for 
Oregon and Washington which were included in the old bill have 
been included in this one, have they not ? 

Col. Newcomer. There have been several left out. 

Mr. DuPRE. Skagit River is in this item, is it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes ; but there is a new project in the bill which 
has been left out. 

The Chairman. The next item is: 

Nome Harbor and Apoon mouth of Yukon River, Alaska : Completing im- 
provement of Apoon mouth of Yukon River in accordance with the report 
submitted in House Document Numbered Nine hundred and ninety-one, Sixty- 
third Congress, first session, $45,000 ; completing improvement of Nome Harbor 
in accordance with the report submitted in House Document Numbered Nine- 
teen hundred and thirty-two, Sixty-fourth Congress, second session, and sub- 
ject to the conditions set forth in said document, $105,000 ; in all, $150,000. 

The next item is : 

Honolulu, Kahului, and Hilo Harbors, Hawaii: For maintenance, $10,000; 
for improvement of Honolulu Harbor in accordance with the report sub- 
mitted in House Document Numbered Three hundred and ninety-two. Sixty- 
fourth Congress, first session, $50,000; and the unexpended balances of ap- 
propriations heretofore made and authorized for the improvement of Honolulu 
Harbor, Hawaii, are hereby made available for improvement in accordance 
with the above-mentioned report: Provided, That if in the judgment of the 
Secretary of War the prices received in response to advertisement for bids 
for dredging are not reasonable, so much of the amount herein appropriated 
and authorized as shall be necessary may be expended for the purchase or 
construction of a suitable dredging plant; continuing improvement of Hilo 
Harbor, $150,000; in aU, $210,000. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Col. Newcomer 
what progress they are making on Hilo Harbor. 

Col. Newcomer. I do not recall in detail now. The breakwater 
construction is well advanced and some dredging has been done, but 
just the situation I could not tell, without referring to the records. 

Mr. HuLBERT. They finally completed the quarry, did they not, 
and they are now getting rock? 

Col. Newcomer. I think they are getting rock out, but, as I say, I 
would really have to refresh my memory on that. I have not had 
occasion to look it up lately. 

The Chairman. The next item is: 

San Juan Harbor, Porto Rico: For maintenance, $10,000; for improvement 
in cooperation with the local government in accordance with the report sub- 
mitted in House Document Numbered Eight hundred and sixty-five, Sixty- 
third Congress, second session, $400,000 ; in all, $410,000 : Provided, That until 
$600,000 of the amount expended on the dredging and reclamation work au- 
thorized herein is reimbursed, the Government of Porto Rico shall on the first 
day of July of each year after the completion of the work pay to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States $50,000. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATIOISr BILL. 103 

Mr. BooHER. What is the object of having Porto Rico pay this 
Government $50,000. Is that for land? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir ; the project proposed here for adoption is 
a project for extending the inner harbor area so as to provide more 
adequate space for the vessels, and the production of additional dock 
facilities, the present harbor being very much crowded. In connec- 
tion with the extension there will be a considerable amount of land 
reclaimed, which will have a value, and it was thought, by reason of 
that value, created in that way, which will go to the local govern- 
ment of Porto Rico, that they should contribute toward the cost of 
the work. The cost of the work, if I recall now, is $850,000. 
Mr. Gray. Is that $50,000 to be continued? 
Mr. Kettner. Until the $600,000 is paid. 

Col. Newcomer. The first proposition was that the Secretary of 
War should reserve control over the disposition of that land that is 
so reclaimed, and provided that the rentals on account of leases that 
are paid and received by the Porto Rican government should be depos- 
ited to the credit of the United States as part reimbursement; but 
Gen. Mclntyre, who has charge of the Insular Bureau, said he thought 
it would be a very much better proposition than that to have these 
regular payments made — a stipulated payment each year after the 
work is completed, extending over a considerable period of years — 
and, as we saw no objection to that, it was modified in this bill. 

Mr. Gray. Colonel, was the government of Porto Rico consulted at 
all about their willingness to do this ? 

Col. Newcomer. The officer in charge of the Insular Bureau — Gen. 
Mclntyre — of course, has general control of it. 

Mr. Gray. Are the people down there willing to do that ? 
Col. Newco]mer. Of course, when that proposition was taken up in 
the first place, the reimbursement question was taken up. This last 
phase of the matter — of putting it in the form of a stipulated sum 
each year rather than depositing the receipts from rentals — I do not 
think has been submitted to them, except through their representative 
here. 

(AYhereupon, at 5 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to- 
morrow, Thursday, May 3, 1917, at 2 o'clock p. m.) 



House or Representatives, 
Committee on Rivers and Harbors, 

Thursday, May 3, 1917, 

The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m., Pton. John H. Small (chair- 
man) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF COL. HENRY C. NEWCOMER— Resumed. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, at the conclusion of the meeting on 
yesterday the committee had completed down to the bottom of page 
26 and the top of page 27, the last item of recommendations for appro- 
priations ; and during the consideration of the recommendations con- 
tained in this tentative bill certain items were referred back to CoL 
Newcomer for further consideration, with a view to determining and 



104 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

reporting whether the War Department desired to make any modifica- 
tion of their original recommendations; and if Col. Newcomer is now 
ready the committee would be glad to hear from him in such order as 
he may think proper to present the matter. 

Col. Newcomer. I may state that in addition to certain particular 
items that were brought to my attention yesterday with a view to 
further investigation, another very important fact developed yester- 
day which would affect some of the items as recommended by the 
Chief of Engineers. In discussing one of the items that came up 
yesterday, San Diego Harbor, it developed that the Chief of Engi- 
neers had thought that the bill as submitted to the Secretary of War 
and by him to Mr. Small made provision for the additional improve- 
ments required for the operations of the fleet of defense, to which we 
have referred several times before. That is the report contained in 
Senate Document No. 3, Sixty-fifth Congress, first session. When he 
learned that only the East River had been included, because it was in 
before, he said we ought to, by all means, put all of them in the 
recommendation of the department, and I have, in the brief time 
which I have had, prepared certain changes in the phraseology of 
the bill to provide for those additional items, and I think possibly 
it would be just as well to begin with the first change, which would 
be on page 8, and take them up in order throughout the bill. 

This is for Norfolk Harbor. The bill as printed provides for addi- 
tional improvement at Norfolk Harbor, and it was that fact, to a 
certain extent, which gave the Chief of Engineers the impression 
which he had that you were providing for all the work that was pro- 
posed there. The work which is included in the bill is simply an 
item that was in the bill before, and an item which has been rec- 
ommended for several years as a commercial need. In Senate Docu- 
ment No. 3 the further work required for the needs of the Navy is set 
forth very briefly. The existing project for Norfolk Harbor is a 
35-foot project with 400-foot channels. The additional improvement 
proposed in the bill as printed was to widen those channels to 600 feet 
and provide certain anchorage areas. Now, the Navy wants 40 feet 
to the navy yard and a minimum width of 750 feet in the approach. 
As a matter of fact, we can get 750 feet over a portion of the approach 
only. The part near the navy yard is limited by the physical situa- 
tion to 450 feet; but with the greater width outside, we think they 
can probably get along with that. 

On page 5 of the Senate document, about the middle of the page, 
you will find the situation at Norfolk set forth briefly. Three esti- 
mates were prepared. The district officer first thought that a width 
of 500 feet in the approach channel would probably be sufficient, and 
an estimate on that basis was prepared amounting to $2,937,000. 
His attention was drawn to the fact that the Navy wished, at least 
ultimately, provision, in connection with this improvement, for 750 
feet, and therefore Item B was prepared, which provides for that 
at a cost of $4,039,000. Then another estimate was made giving a 
still wider channel in the outer bay, 1,000 feet, amounting to 
$5,980,000. Item B, as I understand it, is the one the Navy wishes 
adopted, and in order to start that improvement and provide as much 
as we could well use for the next year, until another bill, I suggest 



EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 105 

this modification in the item for Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Va., 
page 8, line 21, strike out " $360,000 " and insert: 

And in accordance with the report submitted in Senate document Numbered 
3, Sixty -fifth Congress, first session, item B, page 5, $900,000. 

Changing $360,000 to $900,000; in other words, adding $5^0,000. 

I might interject a remark at this point which will possibly ease 
the minds of the members of the committee to some extent by stating 
that the additional items which will be recommended amount to 
$971,000: but. b}' good fortune, I can recommend a reduction of 
$975,000 in another item, which has just come to my knowledge, the 
improvement at the mouth of the Columbia River, which involves 
the jetty work, and for which there was an estimate here of $975,000 
for bringing it to completion. I have just had a report from the 
district officer showing that that work should be suspended, ap- 
parently, at this time, on account of the great cost involved and the 
fact that the jetty has now been brought up to what they consider 
a fair grade for several years, so that the estimate that has been pro- 
posed for that item can be reduced by that amount, and the changes 
that will be recommended will leave the total in the bill substan- 
tially as it was before. 

Mr. Gallagher. Did the last bill which we reported to Congress 
contain that item of $975,000 ? 

CoL Newcomer. It did; yes, sir. 

The next item is on page 14. 

Mr. CosTELLO. How much are you going to reduce that item ? 
Where is the Columbia Eiver proposition in the bill? 

Col. Newcomer. You will find that on page 21. 

Mr. Kettxer. Suppose we take up next the item on page 11, be- 
cause we will come to the other item in regular order. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Yes. 

Col. Newcomer. I will come to that item later. 

On page 11 we have the item for Mobile Harbor and bar. That 
matter was discussed this morning with the Chief of Engineers 
and Mr. Gray; and the Chief of Engineers desires me to make this 
recommendation to the committee : He says that he does not see his 
way clear to increase the amount in the bill by providing a greater 
sum than that proposed here for the new project, but he does think 
it would be advisable to include an authorization for a new project. 
In other words, make the sum that is here appropriated available 
for improvement and maintenance in accordance with that new 
project, so that hereafter the department can submit its estimates 
to Congress for work in accordance with the project; and, moreover, 
the operations of the dredges used there for maintenance can be ap- 
plied, in so far as the funds will permit, toward providing the greater 
depth, looking toward a 30-foot project as compared Avith a 27-foot 
project, so that the change of wording recommended there is this: 

After line 4 add : 

" For maintenance of channel connecting Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound, 
$5,000; for improvement and maintenance of Mobile Harbor and bar, in act 
cordance with the report submitted in House Document Numbered Seventeen 
hundred and sixty-three, Sixty-fourth Congress, second session, and subject 
to the conditions set forth in said document, $110,000 ; in all, $115,000." 



106 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

That statement, if approved by the committee and adopted by- 
Congress, would adopt the new 30-foot project. That, of course, 
does not involve a change in the appropriation. 

The Chairman. That adopts the new project, 

Mr. Scully. It commits the Government to the project? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. 

Mr. CosTELLO. And allows the expenditure of $110,000 on it at 
this time ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir ; including maintenance. 

Mr. Gallagher. What will the total improvement cost? 

Col. Newcomer. My impression is it is a little over $1,000,000 ; be- 
tween ten and eleven hundred thousand dollars, If I recall correctly. 

The next item is on page 15, and it is the Lake Pontchartrain item. 
We wired the district officer concerning the limitations under which 
we were framing this bill with reference to the adoption of new 
projects — those required for military necessities — and he wired his 
opinion that the improvement of Lake Pontchartrain in accordance 
with the project which was in the bill as passed before but stricken 
out by us is considered a military necessity. It appears that there are 
shipyards on Lake Pontchartrain which are building boats, and it is 
undoubtedly the prime necessity of the Government now to furnish 
boats as rapidly as possible for the seagoing trade. These are boats 
that carry from 1,500 to 2,500 tons, and we think the small amount 
involved in that project, $32,000, is undoubtedly a desirable thing. 
We did not know that situation when we acted upon this bill. We 
simply assumed it was the old sitaiation, and it was then a question of 
getting out the lumber barges for the carrying of lumber from Lake 
Pontchartrain to the Mississippi Sound and to the different lumber 
ports ; but with this additional urgency for getting out new seagoing 
boats we think it ought to be included. 

Mr. Gallagher. You are referring to the $1,000 item ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir ; $32,000. We propose adding, on page 15, 
line 19, after $4,000, and after putting a semicolon instead of a period, 
the words — 

For completing improvement of Lalve Pontchartrain, in accordance witli tlie 
report submitted in House Document Numbered One hundred and seventy-six, 
Sixty-third Congress, first session, $32,000; in all, $36,000. 

The Chairman. The representation has been made regarding the 
Lake Pontchartrain improvement and the existence of the shipbuild- 
ing plants there ; that their value is enhanced by reason of their near- 
ness to the necessary supply of lumber. 

Col. Newcomer. That is very true. Lake Pontchartrain is a favor- 
able locality for building and launching these boats and for getting 
the material, etc. Of course it is very convenient to New Orleans as 
a labor center, and we now consider that this is really a very essential 
item. 

On page 22 is the next item, which is the San Diego item. This is 
another of the items in Senate Document No. 3, and is the one given 
on page 5, near the bottom of the page. The proposition, as we un- 
derstand it, is that the Navy wants the channel across the middle 
ground inside the bay deepened from 32 to 35 feet. The estimated 
cost of that is $69,000, and in order to provide for it the Chief of 



BIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 107 

Engineers recommends that there be inserted, in line 5, after "San 
Diego Harbor": 

In accordance with the report submitted in Senate Document Numbered Three, 
Sixty-fifth Congress, first session, and — 

Then it would proceed with the text, " by dredging area A," and 
so on. In other words, it puts in both of these documents and changes 
the amount in the tenth line from $85,000 to $154,000. 

The Chairman. That is $85,000 plus $69,000? 

Col. NEwco^fER. Yes; and, of course, the amount in line 17 is in- 
creased $69,000, from $180,000 to $249,000. 

The next item is on page 23, with reference to San Pablo Bay and 
Mare Island Strait. In this case the Navy states that they want a 
channel of 35 feet to the Mare Island Navy Yard if the navy yard 
is not relocated in San Francisco Bay. I understand that that propo- 
sition has not been decided. The inquiry I made to-day brought 
forth the fact that the commission which was sent out to investigate 
this matter has recommended that the navy yard be retained where 
it is on its present status, and that a yard with deeper facilities be 
located on the bay, possibly at Hunters Point or elsewhere. There- 
fore if that reconmiendation were to be adopted no further improve- 
ment would be needed. We have now 30 feet ; but if they retain the 
navy yard there and want to get deeper water, in order to get them 
35 feet, the estimated cost is $661,000. Now, in order to provide for 
the contingency of their requiring 35 feet at Mare Island, this change 
is recommended : 

Line 5, page 23, after " San Pablo Bay," insert : 
" Mare Island Strait " — 

So as to get the locality in the title. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Are they going to abandon Mare Island ? 

Col. Neavcomer. As I say, that proposition has not been settled yet. 
They do not propose to abandon it entirely, but they may, or may not, 
want additional depth. They propose to maintain the Mare Island 
Navy Yard with its present depth if they get another station down 
in the bay. If they do not get that station, it will be necessary to 
deepen it to 35 feet. 

Mr. Costello. Will this expenditure be subject to a decision of 
that question? 

Col. Newcomer. That is the way I propose to introduce the phrase- 
ology. 

In lines 17 and 18 strike out " in all, $670,000 " and substitute the 
following : 

For improvement of San Pablo Bay and Mare Island Strait, in accordance 
with the report submitted in Senate Document Numbered Three, Sixty-fifth Con- 
gress, first session, if required for naval needs, $330,000 — 

That is about one-half the total amount, and probably all they 
could expend in one year — 
in all, $1,000,000. 

In other words, the new total for that item would be $1,000,000. 
Mr. Frear. Have you discussed this San Francisco paragraph? 
Col. Newcomer. Yes ; we discussed that yesterday. 
Mr. Frear. Have you discussed the Richmond Harbor project? 
The Chairman. Yes ; we went over that yesterday. 



108 , RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. Feear. May I ask some questions in regard to those items ? I 
did not know that you had passed them. 

The Chairman. Yes ; we will come back to that after a while. Sup- 
pose we let Col. Newcomer finish the statement he is now making. 

Mr. Frear. That makes a total of $1,000,000. 

Col. Newcomer. That makes a total of $1,000,000 for this item with 
the change indicated. 

On page 24 is the item where we get the reduction. In line 19 the 
amount there stated, $1,285,000, should be changed to $310,000, omit- 
ting $975,000 from the mouth of the Columbia River on account of 
the conditions there. 

Mr. DuPRE. Colonel, it might be well for you to restate just at this 
juncture the reasons that justify that conclusion. 

Col. Newcomer. A report has just been received from the district 
officer stating that he does not consider it advisable under existing 
conditions to continue the work on the jetties on account of the in- 
creased cost and the difficulty of getting labor. He thinks the work 
should be discontinued for several years. The work so far done has 
brought the jetty throughout practically its entire length well above 
high tide. There is a portion at the end that the storms of last win- 
ter reduced somewhat, and there is a very deep hole washed around 
the end of the jetty, as usually occur in these cases, so that any exte-h- 
sion would be very expensive at this time, and he suggests, therefo^^ 
a discontinuance of any work on the north jetty for at least one year, 
and he says if that is done the, amount estimated to carry that for- 
ward for the year can be omitted. He has a balance of funds on hand 
sufficient to keep the dredge at work which has to be operated on 
the bar. 

The Chairman. Resulting in a reduction of $975,000, and leaving 
the amount to be appropriated $310,000 ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. These changes, if made as suggested, 
would give a net reduction of $4,000 in the total carried by the bill. 

Mr. DuPRE. Which was what, originally? 

Col. Newcomer. $26,897,000. That, I believe explains all the 
modifications except Lake Contrary. That I did not mention be- 
cause I did not have any change to present. I presented to the Chief 
of Engineers the matter of the additional work desired at Lake Con- 
trary, just below St. Joseph on the Missouri River, which involves 
an appropriation of $25,000 mainly to close the gap between the 
revetment that has recently been put in and the revetment above 
so as to make secure the work just done at Government and local 
expense at a cost of $125,000, and the Chief of Engineers stated that 
in his opinion he did not feel justified in recommending that appro- 
priation at this time for several reasons. The first reason was the 
one stated yesterday, that it was not considered of great urgency as 
a commercial matter or as a military need of any kind, and he 
thought it could be taken care of as a question of saving Government 
property in this way : We have on hand a balance of about $1,000,000 
from the lump-sum appropriations which were made subject to allot- 
ment by the Secretary of War. We have been holding and guarding 
it very carefully recently for fear there would not be any river or 
harbor bill, in which case, of course, it would be necessary to devote 
that largely to taking care of Government plan and necessary^ ex- 
penses of supervision where the works would have no fund provided 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 109 

b}^ Congress. But if this river and harbor bill passes, then there 
will be a fund available from which any necessary amount could be 
allotted in order to protect the Government work. I may state also 
that Ave wired the district officer in December as to the necessity for 
closing this gap, and we got the response that it was not needed un- 
less the head of the revetment should be damaged by this spring's 
flood. I have not anj^ later information. 

Mr. BooHER. That is what I told you yesterday. The danger is 
from cutting in behind. 

Col. Newcomer. As a rule on these revetments, while the process 
of destruction varies in rapidity in different cases, as a rule it is a 
gradual process, and if the head of the revetment is attacked by 
caving there, in the first place, we have the general emergenc}^ appro- 
priation from AYhich an allotment of not exceeding $10,000 could be 
made, and then, as I say, we have also this other balance of $1,000,000, 
subject to allotment. 

Mr. BooHEE. What language do you propose to insert in the bill 
that would authorize the use of that money ? The present language 
would hardly be sufficient. 

Col. Xewco^ier. I do not think we need any language at all in the 
bill. The work has been approved and the allotment could be made 
by the Secretary of War without any further authorization of Con- 
gress. 

Mr. Booher. But if you want to begin that work and go to the de- 
partment to get the money, will there not be the objection raised that 
there is no law authorizing the appropriation from the lump sum for 
that place? 

Col. Xewcomer. The lump-sum appropriation was made available 
for such river and harbor projects as had been authorized and started. 

Mr. BooHER. But this work was not started when that was done, 
and they did not have this work in mind. 

Col. Xewcomer. TMien was this work started ? 

Mr. BooHER. They are still working at it, the lower end of it ; that 
is, they have gotten the most of it completed, but there is some finish- 
ing work to be done. 

Mr. SwiTZER. Could the Secretary of War reallot it? 

Col. Newcomer. He has the authority, as I understand it, to allot 
that money to approved projects as the status of the work may re- 
quire anywhere in the country. 

Mr. Dupre. The point Mr. Booher is making is that the project 
was authorized in a bill subsequently - 

Mr. BooHER (interposing). The money was appropriated; $75,000 
has been appropriated for years, but the people have never been able 
to raise their part of the money. The project itself was adopted in 
1908. 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think there is an}^ question about that at 
all. 

Mr. BooHER. As I say, it was authorized back in 1908, and we have 
each year appropriated $75,000 for it since I have been here, in ac- 
cordance with document so and so. Now, if that is the case, and the 
money in this lump sum could be allotted by the Secretary of War 
to any other fund or work, I do not care about having anything in 
the bill, except that I would like to be in a position to explain the 
matter to the people who are interested in it. If there could be some 



110 EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

language put in the bill that would in a way protect me from having 
to explain the matter to a thousand people, I would like to have it 
done. 

Mr. Freak. May I make an inquiry at this point ? 

Mr. BooHER. Please wait until we get through with this one. 

The Chairman. Judge Booher is discussing with Col. Newcomer 
the matter of an item which was contained in the last bill for the 
Missouri River near St. Joseph. 

Col. Neavcomer. As a matter of fact, was that item in the last bill? 
Mr. Brooker could tell. 

Mr. Kettner. Yes; it was in the last bill that was reported. 

Mr. BooHER. It was carried in the bill before. There was $75,000 
carried for it in the 1916 bill. I know that it was in the bill that did 
not pass. 

Col. Newcomer. If the 1916 act did not modify the status of the 
project any, but simply provided for the completion of the project, 
then I do not think there is any question whatever but that the lump- 
sum appropriation would be available for it. 

Mr. BooHER. Could you not recommend some language to be put 
in there showing that the appropriation may be taken from this 
lump sum ? 

Col. Newcomer. It would be unusual to put something of that 
kind in the bill simply as a matter of information to the persons 
concerned. 

Mr. BooHER. Of course every one of them will want to know what 
was done. 

Col. Newcomer. I think that could be done by a letter from the 
department. Of course I have not thought of any language to insert 
in the bill. 

Mr. BooHER. Your opinion is that if the river begins damaging 
the upper end of the new work the money could be taken from the 
lump sum carried in the bill of 1915 without making a specific 
appropriation ? 

Col. Newcomer. Exactly. 

Mr. BooHER. And enough of it could be taken to protect it? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir ; we will have that in the record. 

The Chairman. Colonel, have you completed your statement on 
the matters that have been referred to as comprising the modifica- 
tions of your original recommendations? 

Col. Newxomer. Yes, sir; I believe that all of them have been 
mentioned. 

Mr. Frear. I understood that you had reduced the appropriation 
for the Columbia River, on page 24, from $1,285,000 down to 
$310,000? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. How did you happen to make that estimate of $1,285,- 
000 that appears in the bill ? 

Col. Newcomer. That was made to provide for additional jetty 
work on the north jetty at the mouth of the Columbia River^^ It was 
estimated that $975,000 would be required to complete that work and 
to do certain work of maintenance during this year. 

Mr. Frear. You believed that that was an emergency matter and 
that it was a necessary expenditure at this time, did you not? 



KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. Ill 

Col. Newcomer. From the information we had from the district 
officer we considered that it was desirable. 

Mr. Frear. And you arbitrarily reduced that estimate by $975,000 
just on his statement? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; on his statement, not arbitrarily. 

Mr. Frear. That is the only information you had ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. I wanted to inquire what method was followed in mak- 
ing changes in the estimates. 

Col. Newcomer. It was done on information furnished by the 
district officer. 

Mr. Frear. You did this from information from the district officer, 
and you have not consulted with any one else as to its necessity ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. The district officer is the one who is 
most familiar with the work. 

Mr. Frear. Referring to the item for Richmond Harbor, on page 
23, what is the total amount to be expended there ? 

Col. Newcomer. It is my impression that it is about $428,000. 

Mr. Frear. What is that included for? Is that a matter of pre- 
paredness or of commercial necessity? 

Col. Newcomer. That is a part of the commercial necessity. That 
is the terminus for one of the transcontinental lines, the Santa Fe, 
and there is a very extensive commerce seeking outlet there. 

Mr. Frear. Right at that point. You said it was seeking an out- 
let — what is your reason for making that statement ? 

Col. Newcomer. The information, all of which has been embodied 
in this document 

Mr. Frear (interposing). You have examined that project per- 
sonally ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. The locality there has already spent 
large sums in preparation for this harbor improvement, in building 
terminals, wharves, etc. The locality is to pay one-half of the cost 
of this item of improvement. 

Mr. Frear. But they get a great deal of land by that proposition, 
do they not? They get a good deal of land on a real estate project, 
do they not? 

Col. Newcomer. I think there is sonie, but it is not a great deal. 

Mr. Frear. I have examined that project myself, and so I have 
some information about it. They have a Avharf there at present, where 
there is no traffic whatsoever. There is a wharf there at present, and 
this traffic of which you speak is carried on trains to-day, is it not, 
over to San Francisco by ferries? Is there any traffic whatsoever 
from Richmond Harbor by means of any wharf at that point ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; there is a very considerable traffic now, 
running over 500,000 tons, which, however, does not come from this 
particular part of the Richmond front. They have some wharves 
there farther up the bay, where they now have sufficient water, from 
Avhich they carry a considerable commerce. 

Mr. Frear. You said 500,000 tons? 

Col. Newcomer. I think fully that much ; yes, sir. They have not 
onlv the Santa Fe Wharf there, but the principal one, the Standard 
Oil Co. 

Mr. Frear (interposing). Does the Standard Oil Co. ship any of 
its products over the water now? 



112 KIVEK AND HAEBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. Are you sure of that? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. Now, there has been a wharf built 
there by the locality. I am talking about the wharf that the city 
built below, which forms a part of this project. They built that on 
the supposition that the GoA^ernment would carry out this project. 

Mr. Frear. That is a very shallow place, is it not, for a harbor ? 

Col. Newcomer. It is comparatively shallow. 

Mr. Frear. What is the depth of the water near there ? 

Col. Newcomer. I think it is possibly not more than 8 or 10 feet. 
You know the eastern side of San Francisco Bay slopes out very 
gradually from the shore. In some places, as here, it is not so. 
gradual, but down farther, on the Berkeley front and the Oakland 
front, we have to gd out a couple of miles before we get to a depth 
of, say, 15 or 16 feet. The deep water is closer to the shore here, 
but it is necessary to excavate a channel and basin. 

Mr. Frear. And that is the reason why the engineers have placed 
that in this bill, because it is a new project. It is simply a commer- 
cial project and not in any sense urged on account of preparedness. 

Col. Newcomer. It is a commercial project in the sense that it 
affords a good outlet for that interior territory in the San Joaquin 
and Sacramento Valleys, which are great food-producing areas, and 
this, of course, would make an available point of shipment for the 
products of those valleys. 

Mr. Frear. I will now ask you about Mobile Harbor. I was not 
here when that was taken up. 

Mr. Gallagher. Where they propose to build this new wharf is 
on shallow water, is it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. I think so. 

Mr. Frear. Let me say in connection with that matter that the 
gentlemen who took me all over that project stated that it was a real 
estate project, pure and simple. He was one of the leading men of 
the place. So there is some doubt expressed about it even there in 
Kichmond. 

Mr. Kettner. In answer to what Mr. Frear has said, I will try 
and call his attention to some facts. Mr. Frear, I think you were 
with us at the time we had lunch 

Mr. Frear. No ; I was not there. 

Mr. Kettner. Now, that is where the pier from which the Stand- 
ard Oil would make shipments is located. As Col. Newcomer stated 
they will make large shipments. Now, in regard to the statement 
that some of the people there did not believe in the project, I would 
say that they voted $400,000 in bonds and they will make this im- 
provement. The bonds carried by a vote, I think, of about 4^ to 1. 
Therefore, the people there must be in favor of the improvement, and 
it is a " fifty-fifty " proposition. 

Mr. Frear. Let me say, in response to that, that so far as the 
Standard Oil Co. is concerned, I am- quite well satisfied from the in- 
vestigations I made there that they are not favoring this project, 
and I will say that one of the leading members of that concern was 
one of the gentlemen who showed me around. I was not acquainted 
with him before I went there. There were some other leading men 
of California who took me over that project at the time, and they 
had no object in it except to acquaint me with the facts. Now, 



KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 113 

if this is for the accommodation of the Standard Oil Co., I would 
like to see testimony in the record to show that the Standard Oil Co. 
has ever asked for it or indorsed it. 

Col. Newcomer. In response to that statement, I will say that the 
Standard Oil Co. is not affected by this project except in the matter 
of the taxes that they will have to pay on account of the bonds that 
have been issued. I might state this, also, that I was just informed 
by Mr. Curr}'^, the other day, that the Standard Oil people were in 
favor of this proposition, although they have a wharf that will serve 
their needs, and that they are willing to bear their proportionate part 
of the burden of taxation. I might state, further, that this proposi- 
tion really involves two parts. There is an outer harbor and an 
inner harbor. The outer harbor is what I had in mind at first, be- 
cause it is the most important 

Mr. Frear (interposing). Does this include both the outer and 
inner harbors? 

Col. Newcomer. I will see. I am not quite certain. 

Mr. Frear. This is for the improvement of Richmond Harbor. 

Col. Newcomer. The project document referred to in the bill does 
include the outer channel and then the channel to the slough. Now, 
the outer harbor project involves a slight reclamation of land because 
of the fact that in order to straighten the harbor line a bulkhead has 
to be built, but that reclaimed land will be largely used for wharf 
purposes, that is, municipal wharf purposes. There is no other land 
reclamation there that I can see. This is right opposite the bluff, 
and the coast line there is very abrupt. Now, in connection with the 
inner harbor development, leading up to the slough, as I understand 
it, that will probably involve the reclamation of quite a large area 
of land. That, of course, has a considerable value from the real 
estate aspect, but I do not think that the other part has. 

Mr. Frear. It would apply more particularly to the inner harbor? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kettner. Is it not a fact that those lands go to the city and 
not to individuals? 

Mr. Frear. Those reclaimed in the outer harbor do, and that was 
one of the reasons why they voted so largely for the bond issue, 
because they thought that that would give them something back. 

Mr. OsBORXE. I would like to ask Col. Newcomer a question or 
two. The point to which you referred is the San Francisco termi- 
nus of the Santa Fe Railroad system, is it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Osborne. And it is also the terminus of a pipe line for oil 
reaching down to the oil regions, 250 miles south? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Osborne. Is the oil supply situation one of great importance? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Osborne. Is it not a fact that that fuel oil is used largely by 
the United States Navy ? 

Col. Neavcomer. That is true ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Osborne. And that, of course, has a national importance? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Osborne. I would like, Mr. Chairman, after we leave this 
discussion, to say something about one or two other items. 
97510—17 8 



114 EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. Freak. I want to ask you some questions in regard to the 
Mobile Harbor. As I understand it, you have adopted a project 
there requiring the expenditure of $1,000,000. Is that right? 

Col. Newcomer. A change in the wording has been suggested 
which, if approved, would mean the adoption of a neAV project 
which involves ultimately the expenditure of something like $1,- 
000,000. 

Mr. Frear. Have you reported on that ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. But it is not included in this bill ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. 

Mr. Frear. Where is the report on that ? 

Col. Neavcomer. It is in House Document 1763, Sixty-fourth Con- 
gress, second session. 

Mr. Frear. What is the purpose of that ? 

Col. Newcomer. It increases the project depth. 

Mr. Frear. What is the depth now ? 

Col. Newcomer. The present project depth is 27 feet, and we pro- 
pose to increase it to 30 feet. 

Mr. Frear. That was the project that was discussed yesterday 
when a comparison w^as made with the project at Tampa? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. What is the increase provided ? 

Col. Newcomer. Three feet. 

Mr. Frear. Is that considered as a commercial or preparedness 
proposition ? 

Col. Newcomer. No money is appropriated for it. No additional 
money is appropriated for it at this time. 

Mr. Hulbert. That would make a depth of 30 feet in that harbor ? 

Col. Newcomer. On the facts as reported 

Mr. Hulbert (interposing). That is the object of it? 

Col. Newcojmer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. That is to cost $1,000,000? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. Is that a preparedness or commercial proposition? 

Col. Newcomer. As I explained before, the Chief of Engineers was 
not willing to recommend any increase in the appropriation for Mo- 
bile at this time. He thought that the facts did not justify such 
increase as a matter of urgency, either in a military or commercial 
sense, but he was willing to recommend the adoption of the project 
so that in the future the annual estimates can be based upon that 
project. 

Mr. Frear. He recommends the new project on the ground of com- 
mercial necessity ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; I suppose you might say that. 

Mr. Dupre. Colonel, did I also understand you to say that it would 
be possible for you to utilize some of this $110,000 on that new project 
if the conditions permitted? You segregated the two propositions, 
and you had $5,000 for maintenance and $110,000 

Col. Newcomer (interposing). $5,000 was for the maintenance of 
one of the other items in the group ; $110,000 was estimated for the 
maintenance of Mobile Harbor. 

Mr. Dupre. Was that made applicable to the new project, if con- 
ditions permitted ? 



KIVEE AND HARBOR APPEOPRIATIOX BILL. 115 

Col. Ni^wcoMER. Yes, sir. The Avork is being done by Government 
dredges. 

Mr. Osborne. I was not here yesterday when those items relating 
to Los Angeles Harbor were reached on page 22, and I do not know 
whether there were any questions asked in regard to them or not. I 
call attention to this item in the bill : 

Such modifications as may be recommended by the Chief of Engineers and 
approved by the Secretary of War for the plan of silt diversion works adopted 
by the river and harbor act approved July twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred 
and sixteen, for the protection of Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, in 
accordance with the report printed in House' Document Numbered Four hun- 
dred and sixty-two, Sixty-foui"th Congress, first session, is hereby authorized — 

And so forth. 

1 want to say that recently, within the last month, Los Angeles 
County voted $4,500,000 for flood control, and $1,085,000 of that was 
for the purpose of taking care of this silt diversion. This item there 
is simpl}^ to permit a new place of exit into the ocean. Now, I notice 
that there have been a good many cuts made as between the old bill 
and this bill on the Pacific coast. It did not strike you that we were 
getting more than our share on the Pacific coast, did it? 

Col. Newcomer. We did not 

Mr. OsBORXE (interposing). And I see now you have chopped out 
the Columbia Kiver 

Col. Newcomer (interposing). It just happened 

Mr. Osborne (interposing). Of course, that is very pleasant to 
everybody except to the people in that part of the country. 

Col. Newcomer. It just happened that way. Of course, the Chief 
of Engineers was going to recommend the insertion of this other item 
when he found out the situation, and we will recommend that, un- 
doubtedly, irrespective of the effect on the bill. It just so happened 
that at that time we got a report recommending the suspension for 
next year of this work, which we had estimated would cost that 
sum. I do not think that there has been any special discrimination 
against the Pacific coast. 

Mr. OsBORN'E. We are a long way off, and are modest, anyway, 
and I fear that our modesty is expensive to our constituents out there. 

Col. Newcomer. I think you will find by comparing the items that 
as many items, in proportion, have been retained on the Pacific coast 
as anywhere else. For instance, you have two new projects at San 
Diego, one new project at Los Angeles, a new project at Richmond, 
another one at San Pablo Bay and Mare Island Strait. Then, there 
is another one at the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Of course, we 
had no idea of making any geographical distribution of them. 

Mr. Osborne. Is that estimate of $371,000 for Humboldt Harbor 
and Bay retained? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir ; separated for maintenance and for im- 
provement or new work. 

Mr. Osborne. And the item for $200,000 for Crescent City Harbor 
is cut out? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. In response to that inquiry, would you say that the 
Pacific coast has had its share ? 

Col. Newcomer. I have not gone over it in that way, but my im- 
pression is that they have not been treated any worse than other 
sections. 



116 EIVER AND HARBOE APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. DuPRE. Did you not disclaim any purpose of making a geo- 
graphical distribution of the projects? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Osborne. I want to ask whether the item for Petaluma Creek 
and Napa River is retained? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir ; that is cut out. For Petaluma Creek and 
Napa River something is retained for maintenance, but the new proj- 
ects proposed for Petaluma Creek and Napa River, and also San 
Rafael Creek, were cut out. 

Mr. SwiTzER. There are immense timber resources around Crescent 
City, are there not? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; that is very true, but we have felt all 
along that that project was only justified in connection with a rail- 
road, and the railroad is not there yet. 

Mr. Gallagher. Has not the railroad built piers there ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. There has been some local lumber traffic. 

Mr. SwiTzER. There is no railroad at Crescent City. It is 100 miles 
from the railroad. 

Mr. Osborne. You say that there is no railroad there and that it is 
the center of a great lumber region. Lumber will be required to meet 
the defense needs, and if you are considering the matter from the 
defensive standpoint you have a case there at Crescent City deserving 
of consideration by the committee and Congress. 

Col. Newcomer. I might state that the Chief of Engineers in tak- 
ing up these matters this morning mentioned the regret with which 
he cut out Cresent City Harbor. He is very much in favor of the 
project, but he did not feel that it was one that should be included at 
this time. 

Mr. Treadway. I should like to ask the Colonel if any further con- 
sideration has been given to Boston ? 

Col. Newcomer. That has not been discussed with the Chief of En- 
gineers any further. I did not understand that anybody requested 
that that be done. 

Mr. Treadway. I brought it up the other day and asked for some 
explanation as to why it was taken out and it did not strike me that 
there was very much explanation offered on that item being removed 
from the present bill. It is a very important project and one that 
has been favorably considered. This bill is based on the Senate bill 
of last year, and I understand that the Chief of Engineers is very 
favorable to the project, I do not need to go over the various 
features of the reason why it seems to me that Boston is one of the 
important places that should be included in the bill. If it has not 
been given any further consideration, in view of the fact that other 
items have been presented here not incorporated in the printed form 
before us, I should strongly urge that Boston be given consideration 
here by the committee or by the Chief of Engineers or by both to 
bring about results. 

The Chairman. In view of the suggestion made by Mr. Treadway 
without objection, Colonel, will you kindly give that reconsideration 
with the Chief of Engineers? 

Col. Newcomer. I certainly will take it up. I did not understand 
that it was proposed to have the department reconsider its attitude 
in the matter. You simply asked the explanation, and I ga^P the 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 117 

explanation of our attitude. Of course, if you wish to have it done, 
I will do it at the first opportunity^ 

Mr. Treadway. I did not ask for it at that time and you covered 
all I asked for, but I fully intended when the time came to take it 
up again. I realized that the attitude of the committee Avould be very 
largely influenced by the advice that the Chief of Engineers would 
give. There is no occasion for me to rehearse the situation. It has 
been debated in committee and on the floor of the last three or four 
Congresses and had everyone's approval last year. I am free to say 
that I was very much surprised the first time I glanced at the bill 
to find that it was not included as the other items were. 

Mr. SwiTZER. Permit me to say that as I understood it the request 
made of Col. Newcomer to look into all these items was made yester- 
day in your absence, Mr. Treadway. 

Col. Newcomer. The suggestion was made that I should give them 
full consideration Avith the Chief of Engineers. 

Mr. Kettner. That is, the items included in Senate Document 
No. 3. 

^Ir. HuLBERT. Not all of the items. 

The Chairmax. The colonel has noted the request, which will be 
taken as the request of the committee. 

Mr. HuLBERT. I want to inquire if the language on page 4, folios 
6 to 9, was intended to adopt the $13,000,000 project for the improve- 
ment of the East Eiver? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. With this modification, of course, that across Dia- 
mond Reef the depth of 35 feet will be extended to 40 feet? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. In Senate Document No. 3, which is a report made 
upon a resolution introduced by Senator O'Gorman, of New York, 
in the last Congress, on page 4, 1 note this sentence : 

North of Diamond Reef a channel of somewhat restricted width having a 
depth of 40 feet is now available throughout East River, except at Hell Gate. 

So that this project, as modified by extending the depth at Dia- 
mond Reef to 40 feet, would giA^e a restricted channel the entire 
length of the East River of 40 feet, except at Hell Gate? 

Col. Neaax'Omer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. But the 40-foot channel would not have any better 
value for vessels which Avould require more than 35 feet than it has, 
if those vessels were to pass through Hell Gate, until Hell Gate 
has been deepened to 40 feet? 

Col. Neavcomer. That is right. 

Mr. HuLBERT. In this report the engineer gives the estimates for 
40 and 35 foot channels, both practicable and commodious, on page 5 ? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. What is the objection to the adoption of a 40-foot 
project at Hell Gate, the same as you have adopted at Diamond 
Reef, without the appropriation of any additional sum of money, 
so that we will be in a position to have subsequent recommendation 
made to get 40-foot depth at Hell Gate, just as you have adopted 
the reconmiendation of 3 feet additional depth at Mobile, so that it 
will be possible in the future to reconmiend further appropriation 
to go to that depth in Mobile River. 



118 KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know that there would be any objection, 
except this : We have not understood that the Navy was desirous at 
this time to go to more than 35 feet. 

Mr. Htjlbert. If there is no desire to go to 40 feet, you do not 
have to ask for the money ; but if you adopt the project now to go 
to 40 feet at Hell Gate, the same as at Diamond Keef, then at any 
time that the Navy might ask for the necessary appropriation the 
project would be already authorized? 
Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Htjlbert. We would thereby avoid the delay that might occur 
at any time when there would not be a bill reported with the new 
project in it? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hulbert. Do you not regard the strategic value of the East 
Eiver as providing the means of ingress and egress to and from the 
Brooklyn Navy Yard, and particularly in view of the fact that there 
are four bridges across the river, the demolition of any one of which 
might entirely block off the navy yard, as a sufficient justification, for 
adopting at this time 40 feet at Hell Gate ? 

Col. Newcomer. It seems to me that 35 feet at Hell Gate is really 
adequate, for this reason : The depth of 35 feet, with 5 feet of tide, 
gives you practically 40 feet. The draft of our heaviest battleship 
contemplated is about 33 feet. It seems to me that 35 feet will answer. 
Of course, there would be a certain advantage in having access to the 
navy yard for a crippled vessel; but whether you would want to go 
to the very large expenditure that would be involved in the 40 feet 
all through Hell Gate in order to provide that facility, in addition to 
the other across Diamond Reef, I do not know. The Navy Depart- 
ment has not asked for it. 

Mr. Htjlbert. You do not go to the expense unless you ask for the 
money. 

Col. Newcomer. I thought myself that we should wait to provide 
for that until they asked for it. 

Mr. Hulbert. What objection can there be to making the author- 
ized depth of the river uniform throughout its entire length, in view 
of the fact that when you have completed the Diamond Reef deepen- 
ing you will then have 40 feet depth the entire length of the river 
except at Hell Gate ? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not see any objection. 

Mr. Htjlbert. But, of course, you will not get the additional 5 feet 
depth at Hell Gate unless the Chief of Engineers makes the recom- 
mendation ? 
Col. Newcomer. And Congress provides the money. 
Mr. Htjlbert. Is it not just as well, while you are providing 40- 
foot depth throughout the entire length, except at that point, that 
it be included, so that you will have the same depth throughout the 
entire length? 

Col. Newcomer. The only objection I can see is the policy that has 
generally been observed by Congress and by the department in han- 
dling these improvements. The law prescribes that in passing upon 
these matters we shall recommend the improvement that is needed 
for the present or the immediately prospective needs. We have not 
in many cases gone to the depth that we anticipated might be re- 



KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 119 

quired at some remote time in the future. I do not see any objection 
if Congress is willing to do it. 

Mr. HuLBERT. If the East River project which was adopted in 
1868, 49 years ago, had contemplated the needs looking very much 
into the future and had provided, for instance, 35 feet authorization, 
although at that time it was only intended to go to 26 feet, and in all 
these years Congress has been in session and could have appropriated 
the money if they saw fit to do so, in all probability the channel 
would be far nearer 35 feet now than it is at present? 

Col. Neavcomer. That is quite likely. 

Mr. HuLBERT. As a matter of fact, at the present time at Third 
Street Reef there is only 19 feet, although the project adopted in 
1868 called for 26 feet the entire length of the stream; at Pilgrim 
Rock onlv 13 feet depth: at Ferrv Reef only 24 feet; at Heel Tap 
Rock 20.5 feet: at Frying Pan Reef 23.8 fieet; at Middle Ground 
15.6 feet: and in the channel between North and South Brother 
Islands only 19 feet. 

Col. Xewcomer. Those are not in the best depths of the channel. 

Mr. Htjlbert. I appreciate that, but we have more necessity for 
the depth on account of the commercial use than you have at Mobile 
or Hillsboro? 

Col. Xewcomer. For the main channel. 

Mr. Htjlbert. The approaches to the docks. Vessels do not anchor 
and discharge cargoes in the middle of the stream; they proceed to 
the docks if accessible. 

Col. Newcomer. Outside of the channel there is very shallow water 
frequently. 

Mr. HuLBERT. There have been requests made to the dock commis- 
sioner of New York City for docking facilities for steamship lines 
that it is intended to establish between New York and points in 
South America, and the dock commissioner of the port of New York 
has not been able to provide the space for those lines because there 
is not the available space at the docks to which the boats of the in- 
tended lines can get access. 

Col. Newcomer. That ma}^ be. 

Mr. Htjlbert. And that is due to the fact that there has not been 
any authorization or appropriation made in order to dredge out the 
approaches? 

Col. Newcomer. I can not speak of that definitely. We would not 
ordinarily dredge out the approaches to the docks. 

Mr. HuLBERT. I brought to the attention of Col. Newcomer and 
the committee yesterday the situation with regard to the Harlem 
River. In looking up that matter further last evening I found, ac- 
cording to the engineer's report, that you have not completed the 
additional channel at Macombs Dam Bridge. They have only 12 
feet of water in the south channel. Those channels are vei;y narrow ? 

Col. Newxomer. Quite so. 

Mr. HuLBERT. And the tide runs particularly strong at that point ? 

Col. Newco:mer. It does, at times. 

Mr. HuLBERT. At certain changes of the tide it is advantageous 
to take advantage of the north channel whereas at other stages of the 
tide it is necessary to take advantage of the south channel. 



120 KIVER AND HARBOE APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think that the tide makes any difference 
in the one to be used. One of them never has been used; they have 
only used one of them. 

• Mr. HuLBERT. The other one has not been used, because it has not 
been accessible? 

Col. Newcomer. Exactly. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Because it has not been dredged out ? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think the question of the tide makes any 
difference. Of course, it would be desirable to have both openings 
available. 

Mr. Hulbert. The water in the Harlem River has been said to run 
both ways, dependent on the tide? 

Col. Newcomer. The tide does ebb and flow. 

Mr. Hulbert. At the south end of the Harlem River there is a 
very strong current at high tide? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hulbert. And when the tide is running in they use one chan- 
nel going in and the other out ? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think the direction of the flow of the 
tide affects the use of one channel or the other at Macombs Dam 
Bridge. Of course, there may be some local condition affecting the 
matter that is not known to me. 

The Chairman. Can you tell us the estimated cost of the 40- foot 
commodious channel through Hell Gate? 

Col. Newcomer. A 40-foot c'ommodious channel is estiniated at 
$30,000,000. 

Mr. BooHER. And what is the estimated cost of a 35-foot channel? 

Col. Newcomer. A 35-foot commodious channel is estimated at 
$8,917,000, which is a part of the $13,000,000 project, which includes 
some other work besides the 35-foot channel. 

Mr. Hulbert. The 40-foot recommendation contained in Senate 
Document No. 3 was compiled pursuant to this resolution of Senator 
O'Gorman, because it was conceived that it might be necessary ? 

Col. Newcomer. The original inquiry was started by that resolu- 
tion, but, as a matter of fact, this report was made to Congress in 
compliance with the naval appropriation act. 

Mr. Hulbert. The resolution was incorporated in the naval appro- 
priation act? 

Col. Newcomer. With certain changes; yes. 

Mr. Hulbert. The act itself did not request specifically a report 
upon a 40-foot channel ? 

Col. Newcomer. No. 

Mr. Hulbert. The Engineer Department of the War Department 
voluntarily suggested the 35 and 40 foot channels as being desirable ? 
. Col. Newcomer. The General Board of the Navy Department did 
that. 

Mr. Hulbert. On page 196 of the last report, it is stated with ref- 
erence to Port Chester Harbor: 

As the result of the improvement, transportation by water has been ren- 
dered easier and safer, while the draft and registered tonnage of the largest 
vessels entering the harbor has increased. The financial benefits to the locality 
are indicated by the amount saved through the use of water instead of rail 
transportation for coal, iron, cement, sand, gravel, stone, brick, and lumber. 
This saving amounted to about $154,700 in 1915. 



KIVER AND HAEBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 121 

The funds available June 30, 1916, together with those appropriated by the 
river and harbor act of July 27, 1916, will be expended for dredging in the 
channel opposite and below steamboat wharf to remove the bar which obstructs 
the approach to the wharves on the east side of the river and for removing 
rock projecting into the channel in the vicinity of Fox Island. It is expected 
that this work will be commenced in the fall of 1916, and that the funds will be 
exhausted by May 1, 1917. 

Can that work be completed with the amount appropriated in the 
last bill? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 
Mr. HuLBERT (reading) — 

The dredged channel between Fox Island is narrow and navigation through 
it is made difficult by sharp bends. At and above Fox Island the channel is 
narrowed by projecting ledges. These conditions should be remedied as soon as 
practicable. 

Have you given any further consideration to the eJffect upon the 
commerce of that locality by the omission of the $26,000 that was 
carried in the last bill that passed the House for continuing the 
improvement of that project? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think there has been any further con- 
sideration since we mentioned it the other day, when we first came 
to that item. That item was decided by the Chief of Engineers 
himself who had charge of the work up there and who is, of course, 
quite familiar with the locality. We have done some work, as indi- 
cated. The appropriation which was expected to complete certain 
work was not sufficient, and we made an additional allotment out of 
the lump-sum appropriation, because they ran into more expensive 
work than was expected. The situation is now better than it was 
before. I do not know anybody who questions the desirability of 
going ahead with the improvement as a general proposition, but the 
Chief of Engineers decided through his knowledge of the situation 
that it was not desirable to include the item at this time. 

Mr. HuLBERT. There is one other project. Do you know whether 
or not a considerable amount of commerce passing out of Newtown 
Creek on the East River has been intimately connected with the 
supplying of the demands of warfare ?, 

Col. Newcomer. I have no doubt it may have been. I am not 
familiar with the details of the movement of traffic there. 

Mr. HuLBERT. The Nichols Chemical Co., one of the large indus- 
tries there, shipped last year $180,000,000 worth of chemical products 
much of which was used in warfare. Have you given any consider- 
ation to the congested condition which renders it almost impossible 
to move freight in and out of Newtown Creek with any expedition 
whatever ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir ; we have. 

Mr. HuLBERT. But you have not felt that the exigencies of that 
case warranted the inclusion of that project in this bill? , 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir; practically all of the tonnage to-day on 
the creek, which is very large, is on barges and lighters and does not 
require any greater draft than we have there now. 

Mr. Humbert. What was the occasion for recommending the new 
project? 

Col. Newcomer. It was in order to increase the channel dimen- 
sions, and permit a little easier movement. In fact, there was grave 



122 EIVEE AND HARBOE APPEOPRIATION BILL. 

doubt whether we should increase the depth. We did not increase 
the depth as much as proposed. If you increased the depth very 
much, the attempt to bring in the large ocean-going schooners would 
block up the channel for the passage of barges and lighters, which 
would be very serious. It was a question whether any additional 
depth should be given. We did recommend an increase of 2 feet 
in the depth, to 20 feet, I think, so as to bring in somewhat larger 
boats. They asked for 24 feet. 

Mr. HuLBERT. There was an offer made of local cooperation ? 

Col. Newcomer. No ; I do not think there was any local coopera- 
tion. 

Mr. HuLBERT. I will refer you to the report. 

Col. Newcomer. We recommended in the report that they be re- 
quired to furnish the land; there was no cooperation offered in the 
cost of the improvement. 

Mr. Frear. What is the total amount carried in the bill now, 
$26,900,000? 

Col. Newcomer. $26,893,000, as now modified. 

Mr. Frear. How many new projects have been adopted in the 
bill since the Mobile project was added and the others? 

Col. Newcomer. If my understanding is right, there were 27, 
although I am not able to state from personal count. We have added 
to-day five. 

Mr. Frear. What are they? 

Col. Newcomer. Norfolk, Mobile, Lake Pontchartrain, San Diego, 
and Mare Island. 

Mr. Frear. What is the total amount carried for the 32 new proj- 
ects? 

Col. Newcomer. I can not tell you. Mr. Brooker tells me that we 
had $5,216,000 before for new projects. We have added to-day — I 
have given you the separate items — $971,000. 

Mr. Frear. That is for Norfolk? 

Col. Newcomer. No ; the total. 

Mr. Frear. You have $1,000,000 for Mobile alone? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir ; we did not add anything there. 

Mr. Frear. I do not mean the cash authorization, but the total 
that you will eventually spend for the new projects. 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know. There was the $5,000,000. 

Mr. Frear. I understand. I should like to know what is carried 
by these 32 new projects. 

The Chairman. We will get that information later. 

Mr. Frear. Can not we separate these figures a little better, so as 
to know what is for maintenance, what is for continuation of proj- 
ects and what is for new projects? We should have those things 
itemized. 

Mr. DuPRE. And what is for authorization? 

Mr. Frear. Yes, sir ; $5,000 authorized at Mobile, which means an 
expenditure of $1,000,000. That is very essential. 

The Chairman. We will separate the items. 

Mr. Frear. There are a number of places where we are carrying 
items of maintenance and continuation. That is kind of indefinite. 
It must be that you have the itemized figures and it seems to me it 
would be well to have those items separated. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 123 

Col. Newcomer. As I recall now there was only one item in New 
Jersey where we could not separate the amount required for main- 
tenance and the amount required for improvement, but that was 
only a small amount, about $21,000. The other items have been 
generally separated. In this item for Mobile, which we have just 
now authorized, we have used only the figure for maintenance, which 
is $110,000. I think you can very readily pick out those items. 

Mr. Frear. Take, for instance, the Delaware River and it is 
continuing improvement and for maintenance, $1,870,000? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. In the annual report you will find that 
for maintenance the estimate is a certain sum and for continuing im- 
provement another sum. 

Mr. Frear. As we have not the annual report to date, it seems to 
me it would be well if we could have, without too much figuring, 
just such items separated in a tabulated list. 

Mr. DupRE. Is there not a very practical and a very valuable bene- 
fit to be obtained by having these two propositions together so that 
they may be interchangeable? 

Col. Newcomer. For continuing improvement and maintenance ? 

Mr. DuPRE. Yes, sir. 

Col. Newcomer. That is not necessary for this reason: The law 
provides that any money appropriated for continuing improvement 
may be used for maintenance if necessary. It is not essential to dis- 
criminate in the appropriation. Of course the amount appropriated 
for maintenance is not available for improvement if it is appro- 
priated for maintenance only, but if it is appropriated for improve- 
ment there is a provision which permits it to be used for maintenance 
if necessary. 

Mr. DupRE. That is what I have in mind. 

Col. Newcomer. In the use of the word " authorization " you should 
note the technical meaning of that term which usually prevails. An 
authorization usually means an authorization for contracts beyond 
the cash appropriation made. As a matter of fact, if you adopt a 
project and do not make any continuing contract authorization you 
do not authorize anything beyond the amount actually appropriated ; 
you simply adopt the project and everything in the future remains 
to be appropriated as Congress may see fit. In other words, there 
is no authorization of the sum required for the completion of the 
project. 

Mr. Frear. That always comes to us. 

Col. Newcomer. Exactly. 

Mr. Frear. Colonel, could we not in some way have in our report 
a statement, as suggested by Mr. Treadway, and I can see the impor- 
tance of it to all of us, showing the amount that remains due upon an 
uncompleted project, the amount that will be necessary to complete it? 

Col. Newcomer. That is in the report. 

Mr. Frear. I understand, but very few people examine the report. 
Would not that be of value in the report that goes with the bill ? 

Col. Newcomer. It is in the report that goes with the bill. Your 
report that goes with the bill gives that information, as I under- 
stand it. 

Mr. Frear. That gives a great mass of figures. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. It might be well, possibly, to segregate that 
and give it item by item. 



124 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION" BILL. 

Mr. Frear. I was wondering if it could not be arranged in a more 
intelligible form. 

Col. Newcomer. As I understood, that is wholly within the prov- 
ince of the committee. 

The Chairman. That has always been given heretofore. The total 
estimated cost of the project has not been given because that is always 
easy to obtain, but there has always been separated the amount ap- 
propriated for maintenance and the amount appropriated for the 
further improvement of projects and the amount appropriated for 
new projects. 

Mr. Frear. Of course, if it was understood in reading an item 
which was only for ten or fifteen thousand dollars to start a project 
that $150,000 was involved in the item, that might cause the House 
to question the particular item. I do not know that it would. 

The Chairman. We will now turn to page 27 and continue from 
the point we concluded yesterday afternoon, beginning with sec- 
tion 2. 

Mr. Osborne. Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me one question, 
before we leave this matter, I want to ask Col. Newcomer what has 
been cut out on Puget Sound and in Washington generally. 

Col. Newcomer. We cut out Anacortes Harbor, Skagit Kiver and 
Skamokawa Creek, but that is really down below on the Columbia 
Eiver, and Lake River, Washington. That is also down on the Co- 
lumbia. The only one on Puget Sound, I guess, was Anacortes and 
the tributary, Skagit River. 

Mr. Osborne. You left in Lake Washington Ship Canal ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DuPRE. And also put in Grays River as a new project. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SwiTZER. Is not the Skagit River project the opening up of 
a lumber region? 

Col. Newcomer. I really do not recall. I would have to look that 
up. 

Mr. SwiTZER. I recollect that Mr. Humphrey made a speech on 
that item, and as I remember it, said that it was a lumber and logging 
proposition. 

Col. Newcomer. I think that is probably it. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, Col. Newcomer has been called to the 
telephone, but in his absence I will read Section 2 on page 27 : 

Sec, 2. Where separate works or items are consolidated herein or here- 
' after and an aggregate amount is appropriated therefor, the amount so appro- 
priated shall, uriless otherwise expressed, be expended in securing the mainte- 
nance and improvement according to the respective projects adopted by Con- 
gress after giving due regard to the respective needs of traffic. The allotments 
to the respective works so consolidated shall be made by the Chief of Engineers 
as authorized by the Secretary of War. In case such works or items are con- 
solidated and separate amounts are given to individual projects, the amount so 
named shall be expended upon such separate projects unless, in the discretion 
of the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary "of War, another allotment or di- 
vision should be made of the same. Any balances remaining to the credit of 
the consolidated items shall be carried ,to the credit of the respective aggregate 
amounts appropriated for the consolidated items. 

The Chairman. I will read Section 3, because I think the commit- 
tee will not require any discussion of the other section : 



RTVEE AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 125 

Sec. 3.. That in all cases where the authorized project for a work of river or 
harbor improvement provides for the construction or use of Government dredg- 
ing plant, the Secretary of War may, in his discretion, have the work done 
by contract if reasonable prices can be obtained. 

Mr. Frear. What is that provision ? Is that usually in the bill ? 

The Chairman. It is an old provision. 

Mr. Frear. It has not been in the recent bills, has it? 

Mr. HuLBERT. How does that provision operate with respect to 
section 6 ? 

The Chairman. I do not think they conflict, because section 6 pro- 
vides for all work done by private contract, while section 3, which 
we have just read, simply provides for where it is authorized to be 
done by Government plants and giA'es them the discretion of doing it 
by contract if they can obtain reasonable prices. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Provided the reasonable price is not more than 25 
per cent in excess of what it would cost to do it by Government plant ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. DupRE. They can be read together without conflict. 

Mr. HuLBERT. I do not see why it would not be advisable to put 
that amendment in there. 

Mr. SwiTZER. It is a useless amendment, so far as that is concerned, 
anyway. 

The Chairman. In regard to section 3, as I understand the prac- 
tical administration of the law, it sometimes happens that they can 
use the Government plant more advantageously on another improve- 
ment and get a very low contract price for the particular project 
which was authorized to be done by Government dredge, and this 
enables them to change from Government plant to private contract. 

Mr. Frear. Mr. Chairman, what occurred to me was that we are 
building these dredges constantly at large expense for the purpose of 
having the Government undertake the work, and I can see by this 
provision that the Secretary of War may at any time, if he deems it 
advisable, change from Government plant to private contract. 

The Chairman. Col. Newcomer, I have just read section 2, and we 
have had practically no discussion of it, except the question has been 
asked to what extent this is new legislation, and I have not com- 
pared it critically with the past laws to point out the extent to which 
it is new. 

Col. Newcomer. This is substantially the same item that was put 
in the act of 1912 to provide for the consolidations that were made 
that year, so that it is not new legislation. The onl}^ change, as I 
recall now, that was made at all was in the phraseology, wherein it is 
stated that the allotment to the respective works so consolidated shall 
be made by the Chief of Engineers, as authorized by the Secretary 
of War. I think it was phrased before " shall be made by the Secre- 
tary of War upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers." 

Now, as a question of mere administrative handling of the matter, 
as these amounts are practically all very small, I thought it was 
more than likely the Secretary of War would authorize the Chief of 
Engineers to make the allotments of these small sums, within a certain 
limit which -would be agreed upon, and I thought that was better 
administrative action than to have phraseology^ which would appear 
to indicate the necessity for going to the Secretary of War for all 



126 EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

these little sums — in some cases where it is a question of allotting 
$1,000, $2,000, or $3,000. 

Mr. Feear. Colonel, why has this provision been left out of all the 
preceding bills? You say it was in the act qf 1912 ? 

Col. Newcomer. Of course, it was not necessary to repeat it because 
it covered the situation so far as those cases were concerned. 

The Chairman. Colonel, may I correct you by saying that you 
probably intended to refer to the act of 1913 instead of 1912 ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes ; section 7 of the act of March 4, 1913, reads : 

Sec. 7. That where separate works or items are consolidated in this or sub- 
sequent river and hai'bor Acts and an aggregate amount is appropriated there- 
fore the amounts appropriated shall, unless otherwise expressed, be expended 
in securing maintenance and improvements according to the respective projects 
adopted by Congress, after giving due regard to the respective needs of traffic. 
The allotments to the respective works consolidated shall be made by the Secre- 
tary of War upon recommendations by the Chief of Engineers. In case such 
works or items are consolidated and separate amounts are given with each 
project, the amounts so named shall be expended upon such separate projects, 
unless in the discretion of the Secretary of War, another allotment or division 
should be made of the same. Any balances remaining to the credit of the con- 
solidated items shall be carried to the credit of the respective aggregate amounts 
appropriated for the consolidated items. 

Mr. DuPRE. Apparently this adds the words, " upon recommenda- 
tion by the Chief of Engineers." 

The Chairman. In answer to your question, Mr.Frear, upon com- 
parison this is substantially existing law, except instead of having 
to go to the Secretary of War for each specific item of transfer of 
appropriation, it gives the Chief of Engineers a larger discretion, 
so that he only has to have general authorization of the Secretary 
of War. • 

Mr. HuLBERT. In other words, it is reenacted to meet the situation 
created by this further consolidation of it^ms ? 

The Chairman. Yes; because there are more consolidations. 

Mr. Frear. The difference between the situation now and when 
that act was passed is that you have been constantly grouping or 
consolidating many of these projects, which had never occurred to 
the same extreme in past years, has it ? 

Col. Newcomer. Not so extensively ; no, sir. 

Mr. Frear. You have some items where you have gi-ouped 29 dif- 
ferent projects. 

Col. Newcomer. I will have to plead ignorance. I did not know 
that this section 7 was in the act of 1913. I had overlooked that. We 
do not need this section here, because that section provides the nec- 
essary authority, except for a slight improvement in wording. 

Mr. Frear. So the only purpose now is to group as many as pos- 
sible, and then the Secretary of War would practically have the 
determination and could change the appropriation from one to an- 
other if he desired. He Avould have that power. 

Col. Newcomer. It is the same power that applied to the former 
consolidations. 

Mr. Frear. And the additional number grouped in each bill would 
have the effect of giving him that power. 

Mr. DiTPRE. The act of 1913 says " hereafter.'* 

Col. Newcomer. Yes ; I did not realize that. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 127 

Mr. Frear. For that reason, we have not understood the force ol 
that provision in connection with this increase in the grouping. 

Col. Xewcomer. It becomes more important, of course, by reason 
of the fact that it is so much wider in scope. 

Mr. Frear. In other words, if we took all the projects, and gave 
the total amount of $26,000,000 and left it at that, the Chief of En- 
gineers, if it was grouped in one project, would have the opportunity 
of using the money as he chose on the individual projects? 

Col. Newcomer. Certainly. 

Mr. BooHER. He does that with every lump-sum appropriation. 

Mr. Frear. Yes; with lump-sum appropriations. 

The Chairman. Colonel, does the department express any prefer- 
ence for the language of section 2 over the language of section 7 of 
the act of 1913? 

Col. Newcomer. The only distinction is in the matter of handling 
the allotments, and it seemed to me it was a little bit better this way. 
I do not know that it makes any substantial difference. Even under 
the other section the Secretary of War could authorize the Chief of 
Engineers to make the allotments up to certain amounts. But it 
seemed to me that this language would be better. 

The Chairman. Col. Newcomer expresses the opinion that the 
slight difference in the veribage makes the section here recommended 
a little more favorable. 

Mr. Frear. Mr. Chairman, the point does not occur on that, but 
upon the enlargement of groups, which, of course, enlarges the 
power. The question is whether the committee wishes to abdicate 
the rights which they have in determining the specific amounts to 
be given and permit, say, 29 projects to be put in one group 

Mr. DupRE. Right here I want to say for the record 

Mr. Frear (continuing). We have never grouped so many before. 
Mr. Chairman, I fear I have not made myself clear. The law is the 
same in this bill, but by changing the number of items that can go 
in a group you make the application more serious so far as the com- 
mittee is concerned. 

Mr. DuPRE. Right here I want to say for the record, and I want 
to ask Mr. Frear, ought not that to meet with your approval, in view 
of the fact that you have always contended for lump sums rather 
than individual appropriations? 

Mr. Frear. I am very glad the gentleman has asked that question, 
because whenever I have asked for a lump-sum appropriation it has 
been because the Army Engineers were unable in any other way to 
throw out many worthless projects, and that has enabled them, by a 
reduction of the total amount, to distribute it among the projects 
they thought were necessary. 

Mr. Dupre. In other words, you do not want any appropriation 
at all. 

Mr. Frear. Oh, yes ; I do, by all means. 

The Chairman. When you express the opinion that that is the 
only method by which the Engineers can discard useless projects, 
that ought to be accompanied by the statement that that is your 
opinion and you are not quoting the Engineers, nor w^ould Col. New- 
comer confirm that. 

Mr. Frear. No ; I accept the amendment of the Chair. 



128 KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The Chairman. We have been all over that matter, but I would 
like to say this: Individually, as a member of the committee, I am 
opposed to abdicating any essential function of this committee in the 
matter of legislation for river and harbor improvements ; and at the 
same time, individually, I think that this grouping as recommended 
by the department does not amount to substantially any abdication 
of the functions of the committee, but does make for better admin- 
istration. 

I say it does not amount to any abdication of any of the func- 
tions of the committee, because in making up the aggregate amount 
of maintenance for a group of items we take the report of the Chief 
of Engineers containing the estimates for maintenance, subject to any 
modifications of those estimates by the Chief of Engineers based on 
conditions subsequently occurring, and then the committee, approv- 
ing each item necessary for the maintenance of the project, simply 
gets the aggregate result at the end. Therefore the committee has 
fixed the aggregate amount carried for the maintenance of the group 
of items. The advantage of it in administration is this : As long as 
the conditions of all of these improvements remain the same during 
the time the appropriation is available, the Chief of Engineers will 
expend the money in accordance with the original estimate ; but sub- 
sequently if there have been changes by reason of unanticipated de- 
terioration or of storms or of any other conditions which were not 
anticipated, then he may divert a part of that aggregate sum appro- 
priated from the improvements for which the segregated estimates 
were originally made to the maintenance of these other projects for 
which no original estimate was made, and to that extent it certainly 
makes for better administration and enables them to meet unantici- 
pated conditions. 

Mr. Feear. That explanation is undoubtedly true, Mr. Chairman; 
but to just give the effect of this proposition we are now indorsing 
and which has never been accepted before to the same extent, there 
are 29 projects on page 9, from lines 3 to 11, amounting to $15,800. 
It may be that some of those projects are not valuable or worthy 
projects, and it may be that all that money is to be expended on one 
project. The Chief of Engineers, under the law as we have placed it 
here, can put all of that money on any one of those projects, whether 
the Congress wishes to drop it or not. He is empowered on any of 
those 29 projects to expend the entire appropriation. 

The Chairman. But as just stated, they will expend the money in 
accordance with their original estimates unless conditions subse- 
quently change which make diversions necessary, and we must and 
can trust the Engineers to intelligently and fairly consider any sub- 
sequent changes and then determine whether any diversion is neces- 
sary. 

Mr. Frear. Then, Mr. Chairman, heretofore in giving the specific 
items and the specific amounts for each item in all these projects, 
which has been done in all the years past, the committee has not 
been using the best method of making appropriations because they 
have been made specific for the various items heretofore. 

The Chairman. I would not want to reflect upon past commit- 
tees 

Mr. Frear. I would not want to do that either. 



BIVER AND HARBOB APPROPEIATION BILL. 129 

The Chairman (continuing). Because there have been some able 
committees among our predecessors. 

Mr. SwiTZER. Mr. Chairman, regardless of the mistakes of the 
committees and Congress in the past, I want to refer to the state- 
ment that Congress can not drop a project — that is, if they want to 
drop a project, they can not do it. Under this language the Army 
Engineers and the Secretary of War have authority to divert funds 
from one project to another, but if Congress thinks any of these 
projects are unworthy or the committee thinks that, the committee 
can drop it out of the bill or Congress can drop it out of the bill when 
it is being considered. 

The Chairman. You have well stated it. Every one of these im- 
provements in these groups have at some time been under improve- 
ment by the United States, and if any member of the committee in 
any one of these groups should upon information which he wishes 
to submit base a motion to strike out any one of them from the 
group, it is his privilege and duty to do so, giving his reasons 
therefor. 

Mr. Gallagher. Could not the Congress do that ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Gallagher. I understood Mr. Switzer to say that Congress 
could not drop a project. 

Mr. Switzer. No ; I said that Congress could do so. 

Mr. Osborne. Mr. Chairman, I will plead to the committee the 
valor of ignorance. I am a new member, not familiar with the pro- 
cedure of the committee, but I am familiar with the general feeling 
of people outside — the people who criticize river and harbor bills, 
and so on. I have in mind the fact that there has been, as you all 
know, a great deal of criticism in the newspapers and among the 
public in regard to these bills. Now, I do not know whether my idea 
is worth anything or not, but I believe that there would be less 
criticism if you were absolutely definite in everything you do here; 
leave nothing to be ambiguous or indistinct. In this bill here, as 
has been stated, there is one paragraph where a large number of 
places are mentioned, and for some of them no appropriation is to 
be made at all. Now, the impression upon the public mind in look- 
ing at all of these unfamiliar and obscure names is that the members 
of the Eiver and Harbor Committee are squandering a lot of money 
on places that nobody ever heard of, because such people do not 
look into the matter closely. I think, as a matter of policy, it would 
be far better to put your appropriation to the particular item it 
belonged to and leave out just as many names of places that have 
nothing to do with the bill as you are able to. I think you would 
make a better impression upon the public mind. Where you have 30 
projects and only one or two places where you are going to spend 
any money, just name those one or two places and leave out the other 
places. I just give you that thought for what you may think it is 
worth. I have not any settled convictions about it and do not wish 
to impress my ideas unduly on the committee, but I give you that 
as my impression. 

The Chairman. We are very glad to have your expression of 
opinion. Captain. 

97510—17 9 



130 EIVER AND HAEBOK APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

Mr. Gallagher. I was going to ask Col. Newcomer in regard to 
the paragraph to which Mr. Frear refers containing all these various 
names of places. Are they little streams or branches out of the 
Cheasapeake Bay? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gallagher. What boats operate on those rivers? 

Col. Newcomer. Principally, of course, the fishing boats ; but there 
are steamers, of course, from Baltimore. 

Mr. Gallagher. But all the steamers which operate on those rivers 
are Pennsylvania Railroad steamers, are they not? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know. The Pennsylvania Railroad, I 
know, has some lines ; but whether they own all of them or not I do 
not know. 

Mr. Gallagher. Do you know of any others except Pennsylvania 
Railroad steamers operating there ? 

Col. Newcomer. I think there are some. 

Mr. Gallagher. I do not know of any. 

Col. Newcomer. That is my impression, but I am not certain. Of 
course, that question was taken up, I believe, with the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, and they were permitted to operate those 
boats, I think, but I am not certain about that. They are an exten- 
sion, of course, of their lines and not competitors. 

The Chairman. I think the Pennsylvania Railroad has been com- 
pelled by the Interstate Commerce Commission, under the provisions 
of the section in the Panama Canal act, to part with their owner- 
ship as to some of their steamboat lines operating from Baltimore 
because they were competitive. 

Mr. Gallagher. I do not think there is any commerce on any of 
the streams down there except what is carried in the Pennsylvania 
Railroad boats. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Mr. Chairman, let me say just a word. Many ol 
these streams are on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and the railroads 
are 15 or 20 miles away. I do not know who operates the steam- 
boats and I do not care. Sufficient for me to know it is the onlj* 
means of communication that those people have. That satisfies me 
as to the justification for my vote. Now, as to grouping these items. 
Take the Eastern Shore : I think there are something like 30 of 
those items involving an expenditure, under the grouping, of 
$15,800. I do not think there is anybody — the War Department, 
the Board of Engineers, or anybody else^ — Avho would be able to 
say what portion of that amount would be utilized on any par- 
ticular one of those streams. I believe that method is one which 
tends to efficiency, because there might be something on one of those 
rivers occur, due to increased tides, storms, where an emergency 
arises, and this money would be available to correct whatever wrong 
was done. Therefore, I believe that is a good step in the direc- 
tion of efficiency by the War Department in taking care of just such 
small rivers as the ones I have referred to. If we can^ not trust the 
War Department to give efficient administration of items of that 
kind, we had better go out of business. 

Mr. Osborne. Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the question, here 
is a group of small streams, and I agree with my friend that they 
ought to be taken care of, but that is not a fair illustration of the 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 131 

question. For instance, in my own district, my friend, Mr. Kettner, 
lives about 150 miles from where I do, and San Luis Obispo is about 
125 or 150 miles still farther awa}^, the two extremes being about 300 
miles — about as far as from Norfolk to New York Harbor. We are 
all included in one item of maintenance, and they are harbors that 
have no connection with each other whatever. It seems to me that 
they ought to be separate. For places like the ones you mention, I do 
not think there is an^ything out of the way about it, but where we are 
250 or 300 miles apart, I think they ought to be separated and the 
particular places mentioned in the bill as separate propositions. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Do you ever use the same dredges? 

Mr. OsRORNE. Oh, no; as I say, they are as far apart as Norfolk 
Harbor and New York City. 

Col. Newcomer. I wish to say, Capt. Osborne, that there is one 
thing that will be of particular interest to you in connection with 
Los Angeles Harbor. Los Angeles Harbor has been subject to very- 
grave deterioration at times b}^ reason of flood action and the dis- 
charge of silt from streams entering the harbor. To keep on hand 
an appropriation sufficient to handle all possible emergencies there 
would probably be further than Congress would be willing to go, 
but you are subject there in a much greater degree than in any of 
the other localities to that contingency. If you have a fund pro- 
vided for all three which is applicable in case of need, you are in a 
safer position than if you only had a part of that fund appropri- 
ated for you and the other part not available. 

Mr. BooHER. Colonel, there is no difference in the principle of this 
matter whether you put five projects or 29 projects in a group? 

Col. Newcomer. The principle is just the same. 

Mr. BooHER. It seems to me that this matter can be reached, if 
the gentlemen are not satisfied with it, by limiting the number that 
should be grouped together by an amendment ; but this law has been 
in force since 1913 and it has been found to work very well. 

The Chairman. I think we have been grouping them further back 
than that. 

Mr. BooHER. Yes. I do not think it was a law but simply a cus- 
tom of the committee. I think before they were grouped by common 
consent of the committee and Congress would adopt them in groups 
as reported in the bill. I think in a good many instances, probably, 
we get too many in a group, and when members want to limit it to 
a certain number in a group, they can do so, but I would hate to 
change this method altogether because we would have a great deal 
larger bill and we would not accomplish any more than we accom- 
plish in this way. 

Mr. Gallagher. I would like to ask Judge Booher if he has any 
knowledge of how this has worked. 

Mr. BooHER. I have never heard any complaint, Mr. Gallagher. 

The Chairman. I think it has worked very well. Mr. Gallagher. 

Mr. Gallagher. I just wanted to know if he had any knowledge 
of how it has worked. 

Mr. Booher. I do not know how it works, but I never heard any 
complaint, and that is all I can say. 

The Chairman. We have had this method of grouping for five or 
SIX years, and Col. Newcomer can tell as to how it has worked. 



132 EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. Gallagher. But Judge Booher was making the statement that 
it seemed to work ver}^ well and I did not know but what he had 
particular knowledge about it. 

Mr. Frear. Col. Newcomer, what is the largest number ever placed 
in one group prior 'to 1904? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know. 

Mr. BooHER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to my friend 
Gallagher in this way : I made the statement that it had seemed to 
work very well because I had heard no complaint about it. That is 
the only way I have any means of knowing, and usually when a thing 
does not work well you hear a noise. 

Mr. Gallagher. All the noise I hear that things do not work well 
is in reference to a general bill. That is what they make all the 
noise about. 

Col. Newcomer. Mr. Frear, I have the impression that the largest 
number of items prior to 1914 was 11, some tributary waters of Gal- 
veston Bay. I am not positive about it. 

Mr. Frear. That took in all that inland waterway, did it not ? 

Col. Newcomer. No ; it was entirely distinct from the inland water- 
way. The tributary waters of Galveston Bay, Trinity River, Anhuac 
Channel, Oyster Creek, and Cedar, Chocolate, Turtle, Bastrop, Dick- 
inson, Double and East Bay Bayous. 

Mr. Frear. What year was that ? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not remember. They have been combined 
for a number of years, but I do not know how far back. 

The Chairman. If there is no further discussion under section 2, 
we will proceed. 

Col. Newcomer. I think, Mr. Chairman, it might be well to answer 
the question that has arisen as to what advantage has been found 
from this method of grouping. I can state the experience of the 
department. The experience of the department has been that it has 
proven very desirable and very advantageous. It has afforded the 
very opportunity which we urge now as a merit, taking care of un- 
forseen difficulties which we can not anticipate in advance. Of 
course, what the conditions will be on each of the streams we laiow 
in a general way from experience, but we can not anticipate in 
detail, and it has afforded us an opportunity of shifting expendi- 
tures. That has occurred just in the past several months. A num- 
ber of cases have come to my notice where the work on particular 
channels has proven to be more expensive than anticipated and we 
were able to provide for it. 

Mr. Frear. May I inquire if you have not $1,000,000 left from the 
fund that was appropriated several years ago in a lump sum with 
which to provide for all immediate necessities ? 

Col. Newcomer. No; not all immediate necessities. 

Mr. Frear. I mean it can be applied to anything 

Col. Newcomer. It can be applied to necessities in so far as it 
will go. 

Mr. Frear. It can be applied to anything which is regarded by 
the engineers as necessary? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Frear. And that fund can be used at any time ? 

Col. Newcomer. That is available for necessities as they arise. As 
I said before, we expected that would all be required to take care of 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 133 

the plants'and necessary expense of supervision and matters of that 
kind. As a matter of fact, I might inform the committee that in 
view of the possibility of the failure of any river and harbor bill 
this year we have been looking aromid to see to what extent allot- 
ments made from that appropriation might be recalled and made 
available for more urgent or more essential work. You understand 
that in making these allotments the work does not proceed sometimes 
with the expedition we expect, so that it may be a matter of a couple 
of years before the expenditure is actually made, and it is very likely 
we could supplement that $1,000,000 by some additional amount 
withdraAvn from other places. But that is now the unallotted 
balance. 

The Chairman. Your reference to a river and harbor bill at this 
session. Colonel, induces me to ask you this question, as to the atti- 
tude and opinion of the War Department as to the necessity of a 
river and harbor bill at this session. 

Col. Newcomer. It is very thoroughly convinced that it is a matter 
of great importance. I do not think there was ever a time in the 
history of the country when it was so important as it is at present 
to make provision for all transportation facilities, and we certainly 
regard this bill as making an important provision of that character. 

Mr. Frear. iVnd you feel. Colonel, that all these propositions that 
have been put into this bill are imperatively necessary at this time? 

Col. Newxomer. I think possibly a categorical yes as an answer to 
that question might lead to some misunderstanding. We do not 
mean to say that each one of these little items for maintenance here 
is essentially necessary. They may not be actually required in all 
cases, but we ought to make provision for those things. We can not 
keep the channels of the country open and free and unobstructed for 
commerce, as they have been provided by the Government, unless we 
have a maintenance fund, and the sum we estimate here is the sum 
in our best judgment required for such maintenance. 

Mr. Frear. In the case of the Columbia Kiver, you have just re- 
duced that by $975,000 on the bald statement of the division engi- 
neer, notwithstanding that appropriation has been recommended 
to Congress and been placed in the preceding bill. 

Col. Newcomer. Exactly. 

Mr. Frear. Is the average item placed in this bill determined upon 
evidence of that weight? 

Col. Newxomer. The items are all placed in this bill upon the tes- 
timony or information submitted by the district engineer, in reports 
of this kind and in documents which are submitted to Congress. 
This particular instance of a change in the policy of administering 
that work has been, of course, a new element which has arisen. It 
is on a very much more extended scale than the contingencies we 
want to provide for in the group system ; but we took advantage of 
the fact that that work need not be carried on to report it at once 
to the committee so you need not appropriate money v\'e find now is 
not needed. In other words, we want to give 3^ou all the information 
we have. 

Mr. Frear. And you think the Kichmond Harbor and some of the 
projects which have been questioned here are more important than 
the mouth of the Columbia River? 



134 KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. More important in their further prosecution now. 
Of course, they are not more important, by any means. The mouth 
of the Columbia River is far more important than Richmond Harbor, 
but it does not require the expenditure of money now. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Col. Newcomer, in reference to the statement you 
just made, I interpreted that to mean that you had accomplished 
with the amount of money that was expended there all that was nec- 
essary for the efficient use of that river, and this additional expendi- 
ture is simply to add to the improvement and would not affect its 
efficiency at all? 

Col. Newcomer. Only as it affects its maintenance ; in other words, 
those jetties, particularly, are subject to storm action and to deterio- 
ration. The deterioration in this case has not been as great as was 
expected during the last winter and it is mainly during the winter 
that these things occur. For that reason the district officer noAV re- 
ports a condition there which he considers adequate to last over the 
coming year, and he thinks, under present conditions of advancing 
prices and greatly increased cost which was not anticipated when the 
former estimate was made, the work ought to be suspended for a year. 

Mr. Frear. Of course, that reference to the greatly increased cost 
applies to all these projects. 

Col. Newcomer. Undoubtedly. That is unfortunately the case. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Are there any projects left out of this bill more im- 
portant than any of those in it? 

Col. Newcomer. Well, I do not know- 

The Chairman (interposing). I submit, gentlemen, to ask Col. 
Newcomer to make comparisons is not altogether fair to him. 

Mr. Hulbert. It is only a corollary of one that was just put to him 
by another gentleman. 

The Chairman. I think we should let him speak of individual 
projects, but a matter of comparison is a matter of argument. 

Mr. Hulbert. If the chairman feels it is not a proper question, I 
will not press it. 

Mr. Frear. I assume in all these matters the Colonel is not speak- 
ing for himself, and we do not hold him responsible for the judgment 
expressed on these projects. I assume it is the policy of the 
department. 

Col. Newcomer. To answer Mr. Hulbert'S question, I did not, of 
course, regard some of these projects provided for in this bill as 
more important than some of the new projects left out, by any means, 
except for the expenditure of the small sums proposed. Some of the 
new projects I consider more important, taken in a large national 
way; but here is a facility of navigation which has been provided 
and which the ' Government has undertaken an obligation to main- 
tain, and the people are dependent upon it, and the cost involved 
usually is minor, whereas the cost involved in taking up new projects 
may often be very great. These small sums would not accomplish as 
much good on the larger projects as on the smaller. 

Mr. Hulbert. Let me be specific. Do you consider the project foi 
the improvement of the channel between Staten Island and Hoffman 
and Swinburne Islands as more important than the anchorage 
grounds off the Statue of Liberty ? 



KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 135 

Col. Newcomer. I consider the expenditure of the $50,000 that is 
proposed in this case as better applied in that channel than the 
other. 

Mr. HuLBEET. But you did not think that last February. 

Col. Newcomer. Why not? 

Mr. HuLBERT. Because you did not say so. 

Mr. SwiTZER. Mr. Chairman, has not this question and answer been 
13ut in the record at least once or twice before? 

The Chairman. I think it is somewhat of a repetition, but still we 
want to yield every courtesy to Mr. Hulbert. 

Mr. Hulbert. I will not press it as long as Mr. Switzer objects. 

Mr. Switzer. I did not object; I just asked the question. 

Mr. Treadavat. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question, if 
that matter is closed. 

The Chairman. Unless Mr. Hulbert wishes to continue. 

Mr. HuT.BERT. I have stated I do not care to press it. 

Mr. Treadway. I would like to ask if the suggested bill we are 
now considering is not rather more in the nature of a recommenda- 
tion from the Chief of Engineers or the board, as the case may be, 
than in the framing- of previous bills — that is, our previous method 
has been that you have submitted certain data to us which v^e had in 
these group books, and from that the committee made up its own 
mind as it went along from item to item and changed the amounts 
as they might see fit, you simply furnishing the data? If this bill 
is prepared by the department and recommended to us, are you not in 
that wa}^ — I am not criticizing you — offering rather more initiative 
advice and suggestions than in framing bills previously ? 

Col. Newcomer. Unquestionably. I do not know of any other 
case, in fact, where the department has ever presented a bill in this 
form, and it arises simply from the situation that developed as to 
what sort of bill, if any, would be considered by this Congress. We 
understood, and we were very much pleased when we got the infor- 
mation, that the bill as it was passed before would probably be re- 
passed. Then we got a request that we prepare a bill which we 
could recommend, pruning it down as much as possible, as required 
under the present conditions. It is for that reason we took it up 
in that way. I do not know that it has ever been done before, and 
I can assure you I do not want to do it again. 

The Chairman. We will now proceed to section 3 : . 

Sec. 3. That in all cases where the authorized project for a work of river 
or harbor improvement provides for the construction or use of Government 
dredging plant, the Secretary of War may, in his discretion, have the work 
done by contract if reasonable prices can be obtained. 

Colonel, is that new, and will you explain the purpose of it? 

Col. Newcomer. That was introduced in the Senate Committee 
on Commerce with the idea, particular^ in view of the present situa- 
tion of the cost of construction of Government dredges, that where 
a project provides for a dredge, as for instance, at the mouth of 
the Brazos River, it may be preferable, instead of constructing the 
Government plant at this time, to do the work by contract until con- 
ditions are more favorable for building the dredge. It is simply a 
precaution in the interest of economy in the present administration 
of the work. We have hitherto had authority of law for doing 



136 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATIOlSr BILL. 

work by hired labor where contracts are f)rovided for, and here is 
practically the reverse of that proposition. 

The Chairman. Colonel, you handed me the other day a recom- 
mendation for a legislative provision, and I will now read a new 
section of general law which has been recommended by the War 
Department. 

That amounts hereafter paid by private parties or other agencies for rental 
of plant belonging to river and harbor work shall be deposited in each case ta 
the credit of the appropriation to which the plant belongs. 

Colonel, will you explain the necessity for that ? 

Col. Newcomer. The practice of the department with reference to 
the rental of Government plant for private work has been to permit 
it only in cases where a private plant is not available, as we do not 
want to enter into competition with private plants, and where also 
the Government plant can be spared at the time from the Govern- 
ment work. Now, the method of arranging the charge for that was 
to include the operating expenses of the plant on the work and a 
reasonable additional sum to cover the proportionate share of the 
annual cost of repairs and maintenance and upkeep of the plant. At 
first that was all arranged as one sum, usually figured at so much 
per day. We found the auditor required us to deposit those sums in 
the Treasury to the credit of the surplus funds, so that the appro- 
priation did not get the benefit of it. In other words, in paying the 
operating costs of the dredge the appropriation was really depleted 
by a certain amount. Then, to avoid that in part, we made arrange- 
ments after that to make them pay the operating cost and a rental, 
the rental in that case being to cover only these other elements of 
depreciation and annual repairs, etc. 

Then the auditor permitted us to deposit the operating costs which 
had been paid out of the appropriation back to the appropriation, 
but he still requires the payment of the rental into the surplus funds 
of the Treasury simply because there is no law authorizing it to go 
to the appropriation, and there is a general law which says that 
receipts unless otherwise specified by law shall go into the surplus 
funds. Now, there is a law that where a dredge belonging to one 
appropriation is used under another appropriation for river and 
harbor work the Secretary of War can make the proper adjustment 
of the credits between the appropriations ; but if it is rented to pri- 
vate parties, or if it is rented to another department of the Govern- 
ment, our appropriation loses that amount which really ought to go 
to the maintenance of the plant, and this is simplj^ to provide a better 
bookkeeping principle to cover that situation whenever a plant is 
used in that way, as it is every now and then, and the rental received 
should go to the credit of the appropriation which is responsible for 
the upkeep of that plant. 

Mr. Frear. Why could not that plant be used in some other place ? 
We are short to-day of sufficient dredges, I understand, to do the 
Government work, and we are engaged in contract work all over the 
country. Why can not any Government plant that we have b© 
utilized by the Government in some other place ? 

Col. Newcomer. We have that authority now, Mr. Frear, and we 
are doing it. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 137 

Mr. Frear. Have you in the past rent^,d these plants out to pri- 
vate parties? 

Col. Newcomer. In a number of cases. The renting to private 
parties is usually only a question of a few days' work ; say they want 
to get a channel to their dock or something of that kijid and there 
is no private plant available, they get the Government plant which 
is at work in that vicinity. We have very frequently transferred 
dredges from one appropriation to another and worked them an 
entire season; as, for instance, the dredge, the Government dredge, 
was taken from the Ambrose Channel and put at work on Pollock 
Rip. There have been a nuftiber of transfers of that kind. 

Mr. Frear. How much money would you say was received a year 
from the rental of this Government property to private parties? 

Col. Newcomer. It is not a considerable amount at all. I really 
do not know. It may run possibly into as much as twelve or fifteen 
thousand dollars altogether. That is simply a guess. Of course all 
those papers pass through my hands and I know in a general way. 
They come in every week or two. There will be a request from some 
point for a dredge and it is usually work for a day or two or as 
much as a week. 

Mr. Frear. Is not the Government using the dredge ? Is the Gov- 
ernment dredge idle at that point? 

Col. Newcomer. It may be when they apply for the Government 
dredge that we can not spare it, but Very frequently thej'' apply for 
it when the dredge can be spared. 

Mr. Frear. Does the Government employ its workers on these pri- 
vate works? 

Col. Newcomer. The Government employs the workers on the 
dredge. 

Mr. Frear. That authority has been given under other laws, has 
it not? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know whether there is any authority 
of law covering it or not, but I know that the Secretary of War has 
exercised that authority for a considerable time past. It is nearly 
all, of course, work associated with the work of improvement in the 
channel. 

Mr. Frear. So that any private plant that desires to have dredg- 
ing done can apply for it, and the Secretary of War is authorized 
under existing law to allow the Government plant to be used for that 
purpose ? 

Col. Newcomer. He does that if there is no private plant avail- 
able. We want to avoid competition with private plants, of course. 
If the dredge can be spared from the Government work it is done. 
I might state that the dredges are unfortunately idle a good deal of 
the time simply because the conditions do not require their opera- 
tion. That is when they are used for maintenance. They are re- 
quired to operate sometimes only two or three months in the year 
in maintaining a channel. 

Mr. Frear. Are they kept on that channel all the rest of the year ? 

Col. Newcomer. That depends, of course, on whether there is any 
occasion to use them elsewhere. Take, for instance, the dredges on 
the Mississippi River : We have there a large dredging fleet, and un- 
fortunately in that case the time of operation is very short, but there 



138 EIVEE AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

is no particular occasion to use those dredges elsewhere. They are 
pipe-line dredges and not seagoing dredges, and there is no other 
place within a reasonable distance where they can be used, and, 
therefore, they are kept up at whatever expense may be necessary 
in order to maintain the channel. When the dredges are not in opera- 
tion, they are usually put out of commission and the crews laid off. 
If the Government plants can be spared from Government work, 
they can be used in doing some private work of this character. 

Mr. DuPRE. Is the GoA^ernment paid for that? 

Col. Neavcomer. Yes, sir; the Government does not lose anything 
on the proposition, and we see that the charge is sufficient to bear 
all of the expense that the Government is put to, not only in the 
actual operation of the dredge on the work, but also for a due pro- 
portion of the annual cost of repairs. 

Mr. SwiTZER. As I understand it, on the Pacific coast you have to 
have more seagoing dredges? 

Col. Newcomer. Two more have been recommended. We have 
now on the Pacific coast several dredges that have to be shifted 
around a great deal from one port to another. Those seagoing 
dredges are liable to be shifted around more than the others because 
they have a number of harbors to maintain. 

Mr. Galeaghek. If a dredge is loaned or rented out in that way, 
why should the particular project receive credit for the earnings 
of the dredge? 

Col. Newcoinier. Because the, project has to keep up that dredge. 

Mr. Gallagher. But we have already made appropriations suffi- 
cient to do the work on the project. 

Col. Newcomer. We do not make any charge as a profit. The 
Government is not going into this business for the purpose of mak- 
ing money, but the charge is only such a charge as is sufficient to 
maintain that plant, in so far as its relation to that project 

Mr. Gallagher (interposing). But we make appropriations for 
tlvAt. Why do you credit the appropriation for that project with 
the earnings of the dredge ? 

Col. Newcomer. For the reason that the plant is used on that 
work. It is there, and for a certain length of time the annual re- 
}xiirs on that dredge have to be paid out of the appropriation. We 
think that that work which it does ought to pay for those repairs, 
but if you put the rental into the general fund it is not available 
for paying up its share on account of the repairs, and your appro- 
priation which is made to do such work is depleted by that amount. 

Mr. Gallagher. It is a contingency, and are not the contingencies 
covered in the general appropriation? Does not that cover time 
lo.^t b}^ the dredge and everything else? 

Cof. Newcoaier. You do appro])riate sufficient money for that, but 
if this rental goes into the surplus fund, don't you see that the cor- 
resi^mding expense that has to be taken from this appropriation 
to ]yc\y that cost must be met, and the Government Avork is made to 
cost more than its proper share? Noav, Ave think that the service 
whicli it lias performed for other parties should not be made a 
source of general revenue and no part of its cost should be met at 
the expense of the appropriation. Of course, that is a matter of 
bookkeeping largely, but it is bookkeeping in favor of fair treat- 
ment of the appropriation. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 139 

Mr. Freak. The effect of this would not be to increase the rent ol 
dredges to private parties ? 

Col. Newcoimer. No, sir. 

Mr. Frear. Of course there would be no inducement on the part 
of Government officials to do that, because it goes into the general 
treasury fund. 

Col. Newco:\[er. There would be no such inducement in other 
cases, because we do not do it for profit at all. We charge what ex- 
perience shows is the amount required for upkeep. 

Mr. Gallagher. But, if it should be given to jou to spend again 
instead of being appropriated, you accumulate a certain amount ol 
money more than j^ou would otherwise have ? 

Col. Newcomer. There have been one or two instances of that 
kind. Take the Ambrose Channel, for instance : The Ambrose Chan- 
nel was maintained at a much less annual expenditure than was an- 
ticipated, and the dredges that were provided for the construction 
<and maintenance of that channel have since been rented to othei 
improvements, and those other improvements have paid to the Am- 
brose Channel funds which have been sufficient to maintain those 
dredges, and its own appropriation did not have to stand the entire 
cost of the annual upkeep of those boats. It has been to the advan- 
tage of both. It was to the advantage of the appropriation that 
got those dredges and an advantage to the Ambrose- Channel 
appropriation. 

Mr. BooHER. I would like to ask a question in regard to this lan- 
guage. This language reads : 

That the amount hereafter paid private parties or other agencies for the 
rentJil of plants belonging to river and harbor work shall — 

And so forth. 

Ought not that to read : 

That the amount hereafter paid by private parties or other agencies for 
rental of Government plants used in river and harbor work. 

Do not the plants belong to the Government and not to river 
and harbor work ? 

Col. Newcomer. That would be a very acceptable change. That 
would be better. 

The Chairman. Is there any further discussion on this proj^osed 
amendment? If not, we will take up the next section. Section 4 is 
as follows: 

Sec. 4. That for examinations, surveys, and contingencies for rivers and har- 
bors for which there may be no special appropriation, the sum of $200,000 is 
hereby appropriated : Provided, That no preliminary examination, survey, proj- 
wt, or estimate for new works other than those designated in this or some 
prior act or joint resolution shall be made: Provided further. That after the 
regular or formal reports made as required by law on any examination, survey, 
project, or work under way or proposed are submitted no sui^plemental or ad- 
ditional report or estimate shall be made unless ordered by a concurrent resolu- 
tion of Congress: And provided further, That the Government shall not be 
deemed to have entered upon any project for the improvement of any waterway 
or harbor mentioned in this act until funds for the connnencement of the pi-o- 
posed work shall have been actually appropriated by law. 

I might say, after making inquiry of Col. Newcomer, and accord- 
ing to my recollection, that is the language which has been used in 
former river and harbor bills, except, of course, as to the amount of 
the appropriation. 



140 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Freak. Do you think that it is advisable to go on making those 
surveys at this time? What is the disposition on the part of the 
Engineers with regard to that? 

Col. Newcomer. We, of course, have no special interest in pro- 
moting these examinations at this time, and I do not know really 
what examinations are contemplated here. However, we thought 
that there was no objection to making such examinations as time 
will enable us to make. We will be handicapped, of course, by the 
calling off of many of our officers from river and harbor work to 
military service, but at the same time we will have in each river and 
harbor district an organization, and these things can be looked after 
if you deem it desirable to do so. 

Mr. Frear. Do you think that it would be any injury to the navi- 
gation interests or the commerce of the country if this was all 
stricken out ? 

Col. Newcomer. I think that it would be desirable, on the whole^ 
to make this provision. In other words, I think that some provision 
for looking after the additional improvements required is very 
desirable. Just how desirable any particular item in here is, I do 
not know, because we do not know before investigation what is con- 
templated in each item, but I think that you should have machinery 
for enabling us to take up anything that is considered desirable as 
an additional improvement. It takes time, of course, to make these 
investigations, but there is no reason why these investigations should 
not be in progress. Of course we have to make that work subordi- 
nate to the demands of other work. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Will it interfere detrimentally with the activity 
of the men in your branch of the service ? 

Col. Newcomer. I think not. There is no limit of time involved 
here, because we can take them up as opportunity arises. We can 
go to the interested parties and find out what improvement is wanted, 
and that work, of course, is handled as we are able to handle it. As 
I have said, we make it subordinate to the other work. 

Mr. HuLBERT. You do not consider as especially urgent the au- 
thorization of any of these surveys, do you ? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not know about these particular items. I do 
not know whether any of them are urgent or not. Some of them may 
be very urgent. To my mind it is desirable to have such an authori- 
zation as this. Of course, we- do not know any particulars about 
their urgency, because we do not consider them until the law is 
passed. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Your theory is that it is better to have the authori- 
zation so that you can do the work if you should want to do it, be- 
cause if you did not have the authorization, you would be precluded 
from doing it ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hulbert. That is just the point I am making on the 40-foot 
channel through Hell Gate. 

Mr. DupRE. It is discretionary? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; as to the time and extent of the in- 
vestigation. 

Mr. Treadway. How many^ men do you imagine are employed on 
this survey work in your various offices throughout the country? 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 141 

Col. Newcomer. I do not think that any additional men are em- 
ployed as a rule. I know that there have been one or two items of 
investigation, particularly these investigations with reference to 
floods, that have required the employment of additional men, but 
almost invariably these items are handled by the regular employees 
in connection with other work as time permits. 

Mr. Treadway. You say that your men will be called from your 
work owing to the military and naval emergency at the present time ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; and that will probably delay somewhat 
the action on these matters. 

Mr. Treadway. So that this long list carried here in the bill more 
than likely would not be reached in the ordinary work of your force 
in the coming year? 

Col. Newcomer. Of course you know that these are distributed 
among the 54 different district officers. 

Mr. Treadway. Of course, if your force is reduced, this is the 
least important work to be done? 

Col. Newcomer. It would be left, of course, until opportunity 
offered. 

Mr. Gallagher. Do you mean that the men called away from the 
work would be the engineers? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gallagher. Would you lose any other men, or only engineers? 

Col. Newcomer. Principally engineers, of course. 

Mr. Gallagher. How many men do you employ permanently in 
river and harbor work in the different districts, have you any idea? 

Col. Newcomer. I really can not tell you that. I have seen state- 
ments as to the number. There are a good many thousands. 

Mr. Gallagher. They are not under civil service? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; they are all under civil service except 
the day laborers. A great many of them are employed also, but all 
of our supervisory force, inspectors, foremen, and, in fact, nearly all 
the mechanics are under civil service. The skilled laborers are also 
under civil service. The men we used to call handy men are under 
civil service. 

Mr. Gallagher. I understood you to say that your organization 
would run up into the hundreds? 

Col. Newcomer. It runs up into the thousands. 

The Chairman. May I make this general statement about the sur- 
veys? These surveys, I think, are the surveys that were included in 
the last bill. Is that not correct, Mr. Brooker ? 

The Clerk. With a few amendments by the Senate. 

The Chairman. With a few added by the Senate Committee on 
Commerce. These represent the wishes of various sections of the 
country. Some of them, I can guess in advance, will not be favor- 
ably considered, and probably the bulk of them will not be. A ma- 
jority of them will not be favorably considered, but some of them 
are undoubtedly very important. Now, if we as a committee attempt 
to differentiate between them and say which are important and which 
are not, the sections affected by them would never agree with us. 
They would think that they had been unjustly treated or that they 
had been neglected, while, after an examination such as the engi- 
neers make and a printed report is submitted giving the reasons for 
their favorable or unfavorable recommendation, that will be accepted 



142 EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

by them as a finality. The rejection of these surveys would bring 
disappointment to many sections and to the Eepresentatives of those 
sections, as well as Senators, for that matter. We would be cer- 
tainly following the path of least resistance, and we would be answer- 
ing the demands of the various sections of the country and of the 
people who believe in their merit if we should include them. The 
people interested will never be convinced until these projects are 
examined in the ordinary way as required by law by the Corps of 
Engineers. Therefore I make the suggestion that we include these 
surveys just as they are. There is not one in my district that I 
know of. 

Mr. Gallagher. In view of the statement of Col. Newcomer in 
reference to the policy to be pursued by the Engineer Corps with 
reference to these surveys, I would like to ask about the estimate of 
$200,000 appropriated here. 

Col. Newcomer. I think you ought to appropriate at least that 
much if you want to provide for handling as many items as you have 
here. 

Mr. Gallagher. Do vou think it is necessary to make that appro- 
priation of $200,000 ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; I think so. This also includes contin- 
gencies for rivers and harbors for which there may be no special ap- 
propriation. 

Mr. Hulbert. I want to ask Col. Newcomer if there have not been 
surA^eys authorized heretofore upon which the work has not been com- 
pleted and upon which the reports have not yet been made ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir ; there have been quite a number of sur- 
veys that were not completed. I have a table which is brought up to 
date showing that. We have recently passed on some that went 
back as far as the act of 1913. Nearly all of them, however, have been 
cleaned up, and we are down to the act of 1915. 

Mr. Hulbert. About how many authorizations are there upon 
which reports have not yet been made ? I mean authorizations for 
examinations, etc. 

Col. Newcomer. I think probably as many as 100. 

Mr. Treadway. In view of that statement 

Col. Newcomer (interposing). Of course that is the normal con- 
dition where you have an annual river and harbor bill. Where you 
have an annual bill, we have an overlapping of examinations and 
surveys. 

Mr. Hulbert. Have you also completed the work directed in a 
previous bill with respect to an examination into the projects, a num- 
ber of which were specifically enumerated, with regard to their 
abandonment ? 

Col. Newcomer. We have not completed that yet. On page 41 of 
the report for 1915 you will find a table giving the work of the Board 
of Engineers on Rivers and Harbors. At that time there were 106 
cases still outstanding. The number of investigations ordered has 
been 1,864, and of that number 1,587 had been completed in prior 
years and ITI last year, leaving 106 out of that total of 1,864. Now, 
of course, this table did not take into consideration the act approved 
July 7, 1916, which provides for a number of examinations. A num- 
ber of those have already been completed, but the exact present 
status I do not know. 



EIVEE AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 143 

Mr. Tread^vay. Are there a good many that might be reported ad- 
versely and then again, within a year or two, the same project would 
be again included in the bill and a new survey asked for on account 
of practically the same item ? 

Col. Newcomer. That is not a frequent occurrence, I should say. 
It has occurred in some instances, but, as I understand it, the com- 
mittte has usually limited those renewals of examinations by fixing 
the condition that they shall not be reexamined until after the lapse 
of a certain length of time. 

The Chairman. I will say that it has been the policy of the com- 
mittee heretofore not to authorize any examination or survey of any 
improvement within four years of any past examination or survey, 
and onh' then if evidence was submitted that some changes had oc- 
curred. ^ Of course that evidence frequently consists of the state- 
ments of Members of Congress, and is not official. In that connec- 
tion I would like to read this statement from the last report of this 
committee; that is, the report on the last bill, that did not pass. This 
report was prepared by Mr. Sparkman, and I call your attention to 
this statement: 

It is a matter worthy of DOte that the last two years of river and harbor 
legislation has shown a material decrease in the number of surveys ordered. 
While the bill for 1915, for instance, carried provision for 209 surveys, that of 
1916 only provided for 128, while this bill only contains 55 such provisions. All 
this would indicate that the necessities for waterway improvements are rapidly 
decreasing. 

That 55 was added to but slightly in the Senate. 

Mr. Treadway. They added quite a good many on the floor of the 
House after this report was prepared. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Frear. Perhaps all possible pif)jects have been covered, and 
may not that be the reason for the reduction in the number ? 

The Chairmax. That is the reason. As Mr. Sparkman said, the 
demands for new surve3's have been decreasing. 

Mr. Treadway. Inasmuch as the chairman desires to avoid show- 
ing any partiality in the distribution of these surveys, and is there- 
fore opposed to cutting anj^ of them out, I think it would be per- 
fectly proper, on the other hand, in view of the financial emergency 
of the country, and in view of the fact that assistance in the depart- 
ment is to be curtailed on account of other work, and in view of the 
further fact that there are probably at least 100 that have not been 
reported upon, to leave them all out of the bill. In that way we avoid 
showing any partiality whatever and avoid any trouble with mem- 
bers of Congress. 

Mr. DupRE. Did not Col. Newcomer answer that by saying that 
some of these might be very important surveys? It is not within our 
power to go here and there and pick out one from another. We 
do not know the situation well enough to do that, and we would 
be here all summer if we undertook to analyze each one of them. 

Mr. Treadway. They have been on hand for nearly a year, and 
they have not been sufficiently important for the department to think 
it worth while to even see whether any in the list werel really 
important. 

Mr. DupRE. I am talking about those in this contemplated bill. 

Mr. Treadway. So am I. We had this same list last spring. 



144 BIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. DuPRE. But the bill did not pass. 

Mr. Treadway. It passed the House and it was in the hands of the 
board. It could have determined whether . they were important 
or not. 

Col. Newcomer. We have too much other work to permit that 
before it is necessary. 

Mr. Treadway. They were considered of secondary importance. 
Now, there never was a time when you were shorter of help for all 
the kinds of work that you need for this work than you will be in the 
coming year. I can not see any reason why they should not be 
excluded entirely from the bill. 

Mr. DupRE. Mr. Treadway, did I get the impression from what 
you said just now that because the House passed this bill last year 
and the Senate failed to pass it that the Chief of Engineers is 
vested with the right to go ahead and make these surveys ? 

Mr. Treadway. No, sir; not at all. Col. Newcomer stated that 
they did not look over the list and had no idea of the merits of any 
of them. 

Mr. Dupre. But you never expected the engineers to determine 
that. 

Mr. Treadway. I asked him about it, and he said they had not 
looked them over. Therefore, I think they can not be very pressing, 
and they can not expect to take up that work, because we are prepar- 
ing this as an emergency bill. 

Mr. Hulbert. Did they recommend them? 

Mr. Treadway. They made the recommendations 

Mr. Dupre (interposing). How can they find out about the im- 
portance of these improvements until the surveys are made? 

Mr. Treadway. Col. Newcomer, you said that this bill was pre- 
pared by the department, and, therefore, every item in it is a recom- 
mendation from the department 

Col. Newcomer (interposing). I would like to qualify that, if 
that is your understanding of what I said. We only went into the 
items for which sums were appropriated for improvement or main- 
tenance. We did not go into the surveys, and we did not go into these 
other general provisions here. We thought that there was prob- 
ably no objection to them, and we did not have any objection to them 
at all. We simply accepted it as it was. What we have thought 
necessary to consider has been the question of the amounts to be ex- 
pended for maintenance and improvements, and we really gave no 
consideration to these other things. 

The Chairman. We will turn to section 5, following the surveys, 
on page 35. 

Col. Newcomer. Ma}^ I suggest this : I want to call your attention 
to the fact that this sum appropriated in section 4 includes provision 
for a number of other things. For instance, $50,000 of that goes 
toward the payment of a part of the office force in the office of the 
Chief of Engineers. 

Mr. Hulbert. Does any part of this $200,000 go toward the ex- 
pense of making the examinations under section 14 of the act of 
1915? 

Col. Newcomer. The most of those examinations have been pro- 
vided for from allotments made out of former appropriations. Of 
course if any of them should require further examination, and if there 
should be no appropriation for it, we would allot it from this fund. 



EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 14^5 

Mr. HuLBERT. In addition to the items specified in that act, the 
Chief of Engineers was directed to make a report upon any other 
projects, river or harbor, the further improvement of which under 
present conditions is undesirable or in which modifications of the 
plans or projects should be made. 

Col. Newcomer. We have made a number of such reports. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Has a sufficient amount been appropriated to do 
what is contemplated in that provision of the law passed in the 
Sixty-third Congress? 

Col. Newcomer. I think the funds would cover it. 

The Cpiairman. Section 5 reads as follows: 

Sec. 5. That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized and empowered to 
grant leases or licenses to municipal corporations and to public service or other 
coi'porations for the use of the surplus water not needed for purposes of navi- 
gation at the United States Government dams constructed at Lake Winni- 
bigoshish and at Lake Pokegama, in the State of Minnesota, at such rates and 
compensation as he may deem just and reasonable, giving to municipal cor- 
porations the preference. That such leases or licenses shall not extend beyond 
the period of fifty years and that the moneys paid for the same shall go into 
the Treasury of the United States, to be used for the maintenance of the dams ♦ 
and the improvement of navigation in said river. The Secretary of War shall 
make such rules, regulations, and conditions as he may deem necessary to pro- 
tect the interests of navigation and the United States, and the same shall be 
incorporated in the leases or licenses. 

That latter place was not in the House bill, but was inserted in 
the Senate by Senator Nelson. 

Col. Newcomer. I think that was the case. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Was that inserted because applications have been 
made for the use of such power? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HuLBERT. Have those applications come from municipal cor- 
porations or private corporations? 

Col. Newcomer. I am not familiar with the details, because that 
comes under Col. Keller in the chief's office, and inasmuch as the 
permits and leases are before him, I did not personally come in 
contact with it. 

Mr. HuLBERT. I was wondering what the effect would be of the 
clause in line 1, page 36 : 

And to public service or other corporations for the use of the surplus water 
not needed for purposes of navigation at United States Government dams — 

And so forth. Whether that would defeat the purpose that the 
author had in mind? 

Col. Newcomer. I judge it might, at least. 

Mr. Dupre. That is an isolated case? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; there are a number of other cases where 
the Government has authorized the leasing of power. 

Mr. Dupre. This is no general grant ? 

Col. Newcomer. No. sir. 

Mr. Hulbert. This is to cover some specific case ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And as I understand, it has the approval of the 
War Department if it has the approval of Congress? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

97510—17 10 



146 EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The Chairman. Section 6 : 

That no part of the funds herein appropriated shall be used to pay for any 
work done by private contract if the contract price is more than twenty-five 
per centum in excess of the estimated cost of doing the work by Government 
plant. 

Mr. HuLBERT. That is the reenactment of the Good amendment? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; the same thing. 

Mr. SwiTZER. I should like to ask Col. Newcomer whether he has 
noticed that that has brought about any material saving for the 
department ? 

Col. Newcomer. It certainly has not reduced prices, prices keep 
going up. 

Mr. Switzer. And the cost has been more since the enactment than 
before ? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir; I do not think it is because of the enact- 
ment of that section. 

The Chairman. The next item is section 7 : 

That Bayou Meto in the State of Arkansas be^ and the same is hereby de- 
clared to be, a nonnavigable stream, within the meaning of the Constitution 
and laws of the United States. The right of the Congress to alter, amend, or 
repeal this section is hereby expressly reserved. 

That is the matter in which you are interested, Mr. Taylor. That 
was discussed before the committee. 

Mr. Taylor. There has never been a boat on Bayou Meto since it 
has been a stream, but it has been suggested that such streams were 
quasi-navigable. The Government has never taken it over in any 
sense. There has been no appropriation for it at all. That stream 
floods thousands and thousands of acres of valuable land, just as rich 
as there is anywhere, and the property owners on both sides of the 
bayou want to put in some locks and dams so as to hold the water 
back and permit it to gradually drift into the Arkansas River, so 
that this great farming territory may be reclaimed and put into 
corn, rice, and other food products. It does not cost the Government 
an5i:hing. It is lying there. It is of no use as a stream for the 
Government, and never was. I suppose Col. Newcomer will sub- 
stantiate the proposition that the only reason why it should be con- 
sidered as in any way navigable is that when the water in a stream 
of this character gets held back it tends to retard the navigable 
streams and that then the Government might object to it. This 
stream does not and will not do that, because the Arkansas River 
has more water in it sometimes than we know what to do with. 

The Chairman. That matter was considered by the committee 
before ? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir ; and incorporated in the last bill. 

The Chairman. It was unanimously agreed to by the committee. 

The next i§ section 8 : 

That all of that portion of Olhila Slough in Lincoln (bounty, Oregon, above 
a point where a line that is one hundred and twenty rods south and running 
east and west and parallel with the section line between sections eight and 
seventeen in township eleven south, range ten west of the Willamette meridian, 
crosses said stream, be. and is liereby, declared to be a nonnnvigable stream. 

Col. Newcomer. That section was introduced in the Senate. I re- 
member it. It came before the department. The department has 
no objection. It is another case where they wish to enter upon a 



n 



EIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 147 

reclamation project, which would be hampered if it Avere considered 
a navigable stream. There is no objection to it. 

The Chairman. They wish it locally? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The next is section 9: 

That section four of the river and harbor act of August eighteenth, eighteen 
hundred and ninety-four, as amended by section eleven of the river and harbor 
act of June thirteenth, nineteen hundred and two. be, and is hereby, amended 
so as to read as follows : 

" Sec. 4. Tliat it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War to prescribe such 
regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters 
of the United States as in his judgment the public necessity may require for 
the protection of life and property, or of operations of the United States in 
channel improvement, covering all matters not specifically delegated by law 
to some other executive department. Such regulations shall be posted, in 
conspicuous and appropriate places, for the information of the public ; and 
every person and every corporation which shall violate such regulations shall 
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof in any district 
court of the Ignited States within whose territorial .inrisdiction such offense 
may have been committed, shall be punished by a tine not exceeding .$500, 
or by imprisonment (in the case of a natural person) not exceeding six months,, 
in the discretion of the court." 

Mr. HuLBERT. As I understand, that Avas intended to authorize the 
department to protect the work that was going on at Coenties Reef^ 
East Eiver ? 

Col. Xeavcomek. That Avas one instance. The other Avas the trans- 
portation of explosiA'es in Xew York Harbor AAdiich caused so much 
trouble. This was approAed by the committee before. This simply 
makes general the authority to prescribe regulations for all the 
naA'igable streams of the United States instead of canals and waters 
directh^ under improA'ement. We found that there was no delegated 
authority for control over all the navigable Avaters. 

The Chairman. The next is section 10 : 

That an act entitled "An act authorizing the condemnation of lands or 
easements needed in connection with works of river and harbor improvement 
at the expense of persons, companies, or corporations," appro\'ed Mny sixteenth, 
nineteen hundred and six, be amended so as to read as follows : 

" That whenever any person, company, or corporation, municipal or private, 
or any State, or any reclamation, flood control or drainage ^district, or other 
public agency created by any State, shall undertake to secure 'any land oi' ease- 
ment therein, needed in connection with a work of river and harbor improve- 
ment duly authorized by Congress, for the purpose of conveying the Same to 
the United States free of cost, or for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, 
and operating locks, dry docks, or other works to be conveyed to the United 
States free of cost, and of constructing, maintaining, and operating dams for 
use in connection therewith, and shall be unable for any reason to obtain the 
same by purchase and acquire a valid title thereto, the Secretary of War may, 
in his discretion, cause proceedings to he instituted in the name of the United 
States for the acquirement by condemnation of said land or easement; and it 
shall l)e the duty of the Attorney Genei-al of the United States to institute and 
conduct such proceedings upon the request of the Secretary of War : Provided, 
That all expenses of said proceedings and any award that may be made there- 
under shall be paid by such person, company-, or corporation, or State, or rec- 
lamation, flood control or drainage district, or other public agency as aforesaid, 
to secure which payment the Secretary of War may require such person, com- 
pany, or corporation, or State, oi reclamation, flood control or drainage dis- 
trict, or other public agency as aforesaid, to execute a proper bond in such; 
amount as he may deem necessary before said proceedings are commenced. 

Col. Xeavcomer. The purpose of this section is to give the same au- 
thority to use the (joveinment's power of eminent domain in behalf 



148 EIVEE AND HAEBOR APPEOPEIATION BILL. 

of reclamation, flood control, and drainage districts and of the States 
as was before given in the case of persons and corporations. We 
found ourselves faced with this situation in Sacramento Valley, CaL, 
that the State wanted to carry out a project contemplating work on 
this flood-control plan which has recently been adopted which re- 
quired the securing of land in greater amount than would be needed 
for the Government project then in force ; but as the State wanted to 
do it, we could not exercise the power of eminent domain in behalf 
of the State. If it had been a private person or corporation we could 
have done it. 

The Chairman. We considered the language in this section very 
carefully and made some changes, Mr. Dupre. 

Mr. Dupre. Yes, sir. That is, in the interest of economy. 

The Chairman. The next is section 11 : 

That section four of the river and liarbor act of July twenty-seventh, nine- 
teen hundred and sixteen, be, and is hereby, amended so as to read as follows : 

" Sec. 4. That there shall be printed one thousand five hundred copies of an 
index to the annual reports of the Chief, of Enjrineers, United States Army, 
from nineteen hundred and thirteen to nineteen hundred ad seventeen, inclu- 
sive, which shall be supplemental to the index published in House Document 
Numbered Seven hundred and forty, Sixty-third Congress, second session, cover- 
ing the period from eighteen hundred and sixty-six to nineteen hundred and 
twelve, inclusive, authorized by section six of the river and harbor act approved 
July twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and twelve, and shall also include an index 
of congressional documents relating to works of river and harbor improvement 
which have not been published in the annual reports of the Chief of Engineers, 
and an index of such other professional papers relating to the work of the Engi- 
neer Department as the Chief of Engineers may select for this purpose." 

Col. Newcomer, Congress authorized a reprint of the annual re- 
port, which had been formerly authorized down to 1912. so as to bring 
it down to 1917. We found that it was going to be so veiy expensive 
to reprint the report, incorporating the additional data, that we 
thought a supplemental report covering the years down to 1917 would 
be much preferable. This was accepted by the committee before. 

The Chairman. The next is section 12 : 

The Secretary of War is hereby directed to report without delay to this 
House the survey provided for by the river and harbor act of nineteen hundred 
and thirteen relative to the encroachments and obstructions in the Chicago 
River and all its branches, together with such encroachments as have been made 
in and along the lake front between Lincoln Park and the Indiana State line. 

Was not that section insisted upon by Mr. Gallagher before ? 

Mr. Dupre. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kettner. And it was placed in the act before. 

The Chairman. There is no special objection to it? 

Col. Newcomer. I do not see any objection to it. 

The Chairman. The next is section 13 : 

That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to permit the Betterton- 
Morgan Company (Incorporated) to construct a dock or docks upon lots one, 
four, and five, block six, Seattle tidelands, or u])on such portions thereof as lie 
may designate, the construction of said docks to be under the supervision of 
and all material used therein to be approved by the Secretary of War and the 
necessary expenses of such supervision and construction to be borne by said 
company. Said company shall maintain said docks at its own expense and use 
and maintain the same under such regidations as the Secretary of War may 
prescribe. Said company shall vacate said docks and remove all its property 
tlierefrom upon twenty-four hours' notice to do so from the Secretary of War, 
and it shall give the Secretary of War satisfactory assurances that upon thirty 



ElVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 149 

days' uotke'to do so it will deuiolish said docks and remove all debris pertain- 
ing thereto as may be required by the Secretary of War. Said docks shall from 
the time of their construction be the property of the United States and subject 
to the use of the I'nited States for any purpose whatsoever, and the only in- 
terest the said company shall have hereunder is a revocable license to use the 
same under the terms and conditions set out herein. 

Col. Newcomer. That section was inserted in the Senate. I am 
not sufficiently informed as to the details of this matter. It is, again, 
one that comes under Col. Keller. I do not see any objection to giv- 
ing the Secretary of War the authority. It appears to guard the 
interests of the Government adequately. 

The Chairman. The interests of the Government Avill certainly be 
protected ? 

Col. Xew COMER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kettner. We had a section in the last bill with regard to the^ 
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Eailroad covering a lease on a strip of" 
land that is owned by the Government and running out into the bay 
at San Diego to which the department has no objection. 

The Chairman. I recall that section now. That was stricken out 
in the House on a point of order. 

Mr. Kettner. Yes, sir. 

Col. Xewcomer. As Mr. Kettner states, the department has no 
objection to that section. 

Mr. Costello. It would be subject to the same treatment in the 
House ? 

Mr. Kettner. It may be ; I do not know. 

The Chairman. It would be subject to a point of order, but the 
point might not be made. 

Col. Xewcomer. We did not include that section in the bill, simply 
because we are basing our action on the Senate bill. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned, to meet to-morrow» Friday, 
May 4. 1917, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 



Committee on Rivers and Harbors, 

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. G ., May 5, 1917. 
The committee was called to order at 10.30 a. m., the chairman, 
Hon. John H. Small, presiding. 

STATEMENT OF COL. HENRY C. NEWCOMER— Resumed. 

The Chairman. I have a communication from Mr. McArthur 
this morning, in which he quotes a telegram received from the port 
of Newport commission, Newport, Oreg., as follows: 

Special bond election for improving Yaquina Bay and Harbor carried with 
large majority. Our money is ready. 

Commission, Port of Newport, 
Per O. F. Pacoson, President. 

Mr. McArthur states further in his letter: 

You will note that the port of Newport is ready with its money and I trust 
that Congress will make the necessary appropriation to begin the work of im- 
proving the harbor at that place. 



150 KIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATIOISr BILL. 

We will take this project up first this morning with Col. New- 
comer. 

Col. Newcomer. That action is obviously in response to the report 
on the further improvement of Yaquina Bar, Bay, and Harbor, 
Oreg., which was sent to Congress a few days ago, and which is not 
in print as yet, except in proof sheets. It will be some time before 
the document and maps will be available for examination. A num- 
ber of years ago, and previous to 1905, jetties were constructed to 
improve the bar entrance at Yaquina Bay. Eecently there has been 
an increased activity in the lumber situation tributary to Yaquina 
Bay occasioned partly by the opening up of an Indian reservation 
which had been closed for a long time, and the locality now is very 
desirous of getting an additional improvement across the bar and in 
the bay. The jetties have produced a channel over the bar 15 feet in 
depth, and there is a shoal about 2,000 feet inside the jetties over 
which there is a depth of 17 feet. The report submitted (H. Doc. 
No. 109, 65th Cong., 1st sess.), recommends the extension of the jet- 
ties and some dredging and rock removal to give a depth of 20 feet 
through the entrance and 18 feet inside. 

The total cost of the extension of the jetties and the work inside 
amounts to about $836,000, and the proposition is, as recommended 
by the department, that that be done on a 50 per cent basis of coop- 
eration, and it appears that the port has now provided the money. I 
have not, of course, discussed this matter with the Chief of Engi- 
neers, as it has been presented to ixie since my arrival here. I question 
whether it is of the character that would justify special consideration 
at this time. We think it is a desirable piece of work. The past 
tonnage has been very small. I do not think it has been over 20,000 
or 25,000 tons a year. It looks now as though they are taking hold 
of this lumber proposition on a larger scale. This is evidenced by 
their willingness to contribute so much money. There is some rock 
on the bar that will have to be removed. I question, Mr. Chairman, 
Avhether it is of the emergency character which Avill justif}^ taking it 
up in this exceptional way before the document is printed. I do not 
recall anything particularly urgent in regard to it except to get out 
boats on a larger draft. Out there now they can probably get boats 
out drawing 17 to 20 feet at high water. If they can get out a draft 
of 24 feet at high Avater they can get out the larger draft lumber 
boats in the trade on the coast. It is a project which we favor, but 
hardly regard it as of an emergency character. It is one that will 
undoubtedly be approved by Congress at some time in the future. 
Of course, if Congress sees fit to go on and adopt projects of that 
cless now, why, then, we will be very glad to consider them, but I do 
not see that we have any special ground on Avhich to urge them. 

Mr. CosTELLO. The tendency is to keep the amount of this bill 
down, NoAv, is there another item in that particular locality that 
money could be taken from and transferred to this ? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. We have taken something off of Columbia 
Hiver at the mouth. We have a sufficient balance on hand there for 
the dredging required at the mouth. This bill has come up so far 
with every item considered by the Chief of Engineers, and I believe 
you would have it that way — that every item adopted has been con- 
sidered by the Chief of Engineers. This matter has not yet been 
brought to his attention. I am merely giving you my own personal 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 151 

views, and whether he would agree I can not say. As a rule, our views 
have been in accordance, and there is an apparent opportunity to 
take it up in the regular way. 

The Chairman. If we were starting a bill in the regular way, as 
we hope we will at the next regular session, then, judging from these 
preliminar}^ statements by Col. Newcomer and just a casual glance at 
the report of the Chief of Engineers, it looks prima facie that it will 
be included at that time. 

Mr. Kettner. I would like to say to my colleague that we could not 
very well press the adoption of this project and leave out Crescent 
City, because that project should be adopted, in my opinion, before 
this, or at least at the same time. 

Col. Xewcomer. Of course, Yaquina Bay has now sufficient water 
for the lighter-draft coastwise boats. It is a question of giving 
them a deeper draft. 

The Chairman. Colonel, while we are on the Pacific coast — Capt. 
Osborne has asked the question several times; for his information — 
about how will j^ou spend this appropriation on the Columbia River 
and the lower Willamette. 

Capt. Osborne. I think I understand that there is money enough 
there to keep up the dredging at the mouth of the river. That is all 
I wanted to know. 

Col. Xewcomer. $310,000 is the estimate for the work iiiside of 
the mouth, from the estuary up to Portland. We have on hand suf- 
ficient for dredging at the mouth. On March 1 there was a balance 
of $304,000 on hand. 

Mr. Treadway. Have you seen Gen. Black, Colonel, within the last 
hour — after I was there. I have had a talk with him in regard to 
Portland and Boston Harbors. 

Col. Newcomer. Yes; I know what he said about Portland Har- 
bor. He did not say anything about Boston Harbor. 

Mr. Treadway. He authorized me to say to the committee that so 
far as the adoption of the project was concerned it was perfectly 
agreeable to him to have it go in, provided it did not carry the ap- 
propriation it carried in the last bill. He would be very glad to 
have it carried in the same way the Mobile project was adopted 
without carrying the amount of money. Also, since you have seen 
him. Senator Hale was there. 

Col. Newcomer. I spoke to him yesterday about Boston Harbor, 
and at that time he expressed tlie view, confirming his former action, 
that he had not seen in that case anything that would justify him 
in recommending it as a proposition for military preparedness. He 
was in a great rush this morning; and he probably neglected, for 
that reason, to tell me about Boston Harbor after seeing you. About 
Portland Harbor, in that case he does not see any reason why it 
should be included in this bill; but thought if the Canadian Gov- 
ernment should ask that it be included as a military measure he 
would be very glad to recommend it simply on their opinion that 
it was needed. The main use that is expected for this increase in 
depth is the shipment of grain that is diverted from Montreal and 
other Canadian ports during the winter weather, when they are 
stopped by ice. They have made, of course, in Canada, very great 
expenditures for the purpose of accommodating this grain traffic 



152 KIVER AND HARBOE APPROPRIATION BILL. 

wholly within their boundaries, so we do not understand that they 
favor the diversion of that traffic to Portland. But, in view of the 
existing conditions it is possible that they may consider it a matter 
of military value in the shipping of grain to Europe to have this 
done at this time, so we are awaiting the result of the conference Avith 
the officials of the Canadian Government. I understand the matter 
is being taken up to-da}^ with the British ambassador, and we will 
get their views next week, so that there is no definite proposition 
yet for his conclusion. I might state in that connection as bearing 
upon the present urgency that there is a 9-foot tide at Portland, 
and the project depth is 30 feet, so there is no question of any boats 
being able to get in and out on the tide, and if the additional depth is 
provided at the dock so that a boat can lie at the dock and load during 
the low tide it is a question of simpl}^ waiting a few hours to get 
out on the tide. The lack of depth at the dock is one difficult}^ 
there. A boat drawing 34 feet simply could not load there. They 
are now deepening the space at the dock to 33 feet at low water. 

Mr. Treadway. I think, Mr. Chairman, it would not be out of 
place to know of the interview this morning between Senator Hale 
and Gen. Black. Senator Hale was accompanied by one of the 
attaches of the British Embassy. The entire matter seemed to hinge, 
in the opinion of Gen. Black, on the fact whether or not traffic would 
be diverted from the choked ports of Canada. The Grand Trunk 
Railway has good equipment at Portland, but it is practically un- 
used as long as traffic is open in 'Canadian ports. The Grand Trunk, 
which is under the authority of the Canadian Government, does not 
use its facilities at Portland during the period when the Canadian 
ports are available — not closed to the ice of winter. Gen. Black de- 
sired an assurance from the representatives of the British Govern- 
ment that this diversion of traffic would not take place to the detri- 
ment of the use of Portland, provided this work was undertaken. He 
was anxious that I should know of the situation, and the representa- 
tive of the British Embassy left at once to see the British ambas- 
sador, so that it seems to me that the matter is in abeyance until 
f uii:.her word comes from Gen. Black as to his conclusions from any 
further representations that are made by the embassy. 

The Chairman. Mr. Treadway, before leaving, and with reference 
to what 3^ou said about Boston Harbor: Boston Harbor is not men- 
tioned among these recommendations we have in printed form, so 
that if nothing is included for Boston for maintenance we would 
have nothing to which to attach this item for the new project. 

Mr. Treadway. Should there not be an item for maintenance in- 
cluded for Boston Harbor? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. They have sufficient funds on hand. I 
had not thought to put that in with these minor items on account of 
its much greater importance. 

Mr. Treadway. Of course, I should like to see the item carried 
as it was in the last bill ; but realizino- that that is not possible under 
existing conditions, the next best thing is to accept the suggestion 
that Gen. Black makes — to let it go in as a project approved without 
appropriating any funds. 

Col. Newcomer. Of course, that could be done, as has been sug- 
gested in another case, simply adopt the Boston project and pro- 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 153 

vide that any funds available may be used toward the prosecution of 
the new project. 

Mr. Treadway. How much is the bahance on hand there? 

Col. NEWC03IER. Something like $85,000 to $88,000 available. Bos- 
ton Harbor is divided into several item. The balance available on 
the 1st of March, leaving out Chelsea Creek, would be about $85,000. 
Including Chelsea Creek, it Avould be $135,000. An item similar to 
the one inserted in- the bill for Black Rock Harbor could be used for 
Boston Harbor. It reads like this: 

The iinexpeuded balances of appropriations lieretofore made and authorized 
for the improvement of this liarbor are hereby made available for maintenance 
and improvement in accordance with the report. 

And so forth. 

We might dispose of the matter in that way. I Avill take this mat- 
ter up with the Chief of Engineers this afternoon and get his ap- 
proval of that item, and then I can telephone down to Mr. Brooker, 
and, if it meets the approval of the cominittee, it can be inserted in 
that form. 

' Mr. SwiTZER. I move that the provision for Boston Harbor, as ap- 
proved by the Chief of Engineers, be inserted in the bill. 

Seconded by Mr. Kettner and carried unanimously. 

The Chairman. With that authority, then, if we get the final 
approval of the Chief of Engineers, we will include it in the appro- 
priate language. 

Mr. CosTELLO. What was the decision in regard to Portland ? 

The Chairman. The decision as to Portland Harbor is in abey- 
ance, awaiting the report of the British Government — rather, the 
Canadian Government — as to the probable use of that port for the 
deeper draft if it should be approved, and then it is to be inserted in 
the bill if the Chief of Engineers approves. 

Mr. Treadway. I move that we authorize the chairman to insert 
the project for Portland Harbor, as it is understood by the com- 
mittee. 

The Chair3ian. Is it also jour pleasure that, if that recommenda- 
tion does not come in time before the bill is reported, that it 
shall be offered on the floor? 

Mr. Treadw^ay. I suggested that to Senator Hale, and I suggested 
that there was no occasion for delay on that account, because a com- 
mittee amendment would be accepted by the House without objec- 
tion. I include that in the motion. 

Mr. Kettner. I second the motion. 

The Chairman. Then the motion is that, if the improvement of 
Portland Harbor shall be recommended by the Chief of Engineers, 
that it shall be included in the bill if that recommendation is re- 
ceived before the reporting of the bill, and if not it is to be offered 
on the floor of the House, carrying such amount as may be recom- 
mended by the Chief of Engineers. 

The motion was put to a vote and carried unanimously. 

The Chairman. The next item is the one for East Eiver and Hell 
Gate. 

Col. Newxomer. In the first place, with reference to a 40-foot 
channel between East Eiver ai:d Hell Gate, the Chief of Engineers 
is of the opinion that a 40-foot channel there will probably not be 



154 EIVER AND HARBOE APPROPRIATION BILL. 

required for a number of years to come, and he did not see his 
way clear to recommending it unless it should receive the approval 
of the Navy. If they should now request it, he, of course, might 
recommend it, on the basis of their views about it. They have so far 
only recommended the 40- foot channel through Diamond Keef and 
35 through Hell Gate, stating, however, that ultimately they would 
like to have 40 feet through Hell Gate. We have had no indication 
that they want it now. I understand Mr. Hulbert is taking that 
proposition up with a view of getting some approval from the Navy 
Department. If it should be recommended by the Navy Department, 
I do not think the Chief of Engineers will offer any objection to that 
at all, because we are acting on that matter purely on the expression 
of the Naval Board as to what their needs are. 

Coming to New York Harbor proper Gen. Black said, as a result 
of the conference with Mr. Hulbert, that he was heartily in favor of 
authorizing the projects for widening the channel opposite the an- 
chorage ground in the upper bay and for the removal of Craven 
Shoal, provided no additional sum of money be appropriated for that 
purpose. In other words, he thinks that that work should be pro- 
ceeded with as soon as we can get on a normal basis, and for that 
reason he has approved a form of amendment to the bill, on page 3, 
which is as follows: 

New York Harbor, New York: For maintenance of entrance channels and for 
the improvement of the upper bay opposite anchorage grounds in accordance 
with the report submitted in House Document Numbered Five hundred and 
eighteen, Sixty-third Congress, second' session, and at Craven Shoal in accord- 
ance with the report submitted in House Document Numbered Five hundred and 
fifty-seven, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session, $40,000; and the unexpended 
balances of appropriations heretofore made and authorized for the improvement 
of the entrance channels are hereby made available for improvement in accord- 
ance with the reports submitted in said documents. 

Forty thousand dollars is the same amount recommended before. 
This language takes the place of lines 15 and 16 in the last com- 
mittee print. Then it would proceed as in the bill. Now, the reason 
for using the expression " entrance channels " instead of Ambrose 
Channel is to get that on a little better status. The project provides 
for two channels and there is no particular reason apparently why 
they should name one and not the other, because the project provides 
for the maintenance of both. The reason for making available the 
unexpended balance of appropriations is this : That we have $150,000 
of the balances remaining there which to some extent, possibly, might 
be used on these projects. The Craven Shoal project is a small item. 
It is a shoal that is really in line with the Ambrose Channel extended. 
In order to continue it up the bay and to get a clear unobstructed 
channel Avithout changing the course that improvement should be 
made. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Now, by adopting these two projects what amount 
of money do we commit the Government to in the way of future ex- 
penditures ? 

Col. Newcomer. Cravel Shoal is a small project. That improve- 
ment is to cost $30,000, and the former bill provided $200,000 on the 
other project. Its total cost is $830,000. That will be $860,000 
in all. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Practically a million dollars, and we are committing 
the Government to that, so that we have given practically $200,000 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 155 

in this bill directed to these improvements with. a consequential im- 
provement of nearly a million. 

Col. Newcomer. Practically that. 

Mr. CosTELLO. I just wanted to call attention to this fact, that it is 
not a recommended project. 

Col. Newcomer. Now, with reference to the Bay Ridge and Red 
Hook Channels, Avhich were also taken up with the Chief of Engineers 
by Mr. Hulbert. The Cliief of Engineers did not see his way clear 
to make any changes there. In other words, he did not think it 
should be included. 

The Chairman. You have embraced all the matters relative to 
New York Harbor which were rereferred to the Chief of Engineers. 
That brings us now to the rereference of Buffalo Harbor. 

Mr. Treadway. Before you leave New York. May I ask if it is 
understood that this is agreeable to our colleague, Mr. Hulbert? 

The Chairman. I am sure the present recommendation against 
40 feet at Hell Gate is not agreeable to him. These others, of course, 
will be. 

Col. Newcomer. I understood he is willing to accept the decision 
of the Chief of Engineers on all these items except Hell Gate. He 
did say he was going to see if he could not get the recommendation 
of the Navy Department for that project. 

The Chairman. Now we will go to the reference at the request 
of Mr. Dempsej^ that Buffalo Harbor. Port Chester Harbor, and 
Ogdensburg Harbor be reconsidered. 

Col. Newcomer. The Chief of Engineers spoke to me about those 
projects last evening. He did not go into the details as to what 
presentation was made to him. His conclusions were that nothing 
further should be included in the bill for either one of those items. 

Mr. Dempsey. Colonel, Ogdensburg has a commerce with the St. 
Lawrence River, has it not? . 

Col. Newcomer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dempsey. And that really is the largest commerce carrying 
river in the United States? 

Col. Newcomer. No, sir. It surely can not be as large as the St. 
Marys, or the Detroit, or the Hudson. That is news to me. As a 
matter of fact the commerce of Ogdensburg is mainly a ferry com- 
merce. But there is, also, a commerce along the river of a con- 
siderable amount. 

Mr. Dempsey. Here is what I have in mind. Would there be any 
chance of this being put on the same basis with Portland — of a con- 
ference with officials of the Canadian Government to see if this 
improvement could not be made of use in handling grain and other 
materials for export? 

Col. Newcomer. I think the Chief of Engineers would be glad 
to carry out the wishes of the Canadian Government. I have not 
spoken to him about the matter. As I understand the proposition 
there the greater urgency is on account of the ferry passenger traffic. 
They do have a very difficult situation there in the winter frequently, 
when the ice remains in the harbor and they have to land passengers 
on the ice to walk ashore. It is a desirable item in that way, but we 
did not consider it of special urgency. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Can not we put this in the same position as a mat- 
ter to be referred to the British Government? 



156 RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Col. Newcomer. I think if the matter is referred back it should be 
taken up by some other party with the British Government. I do 
not understand that Gen. Black has taken any of these matters up 
with the Canadian Government officials. 

Mr. CosTELLO. Then you are putting th« parties interested in the 
position of taking improvements up Avith the British Government 
instead of taking it up with our Government. 

Col. Newcomer. Well, the point is this, that if the matter is taken 
up directly you will get quicker action. I do not know how this 
other matter was handled. I know there was a conference in the 
Chief of Engineer's office, at which a member of the British Em- 
bassy was present. If the Chief of Engineers takes it up, he has to 
take it up with the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of War takes 
it up with the Secretary of State, and so on, which consumes a great 
deal of time. It seems as if the parties interested here could get at 
It more directly. 

The Chairman. Just as the Portland matter was taken up. 
Col. Newcomer. The point is this also : It is not on account of any 
disinclination on our part. This is a very time-consuming process. 

The Chairman. There is $220,000 on hand for Buffalo Harbor, 
and that is the reason no estimate is made for this bill. The Chief of 
Engineers regarded that as sufficient. 

Now, we will go to the rereference to the Chief of Engineers asked 
for by Capt. Osborne relative to Skagit Eiver and the group item 
for San Diago, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo Harbors. 

Col. Newcomer. Regarding ^^kagit River, Wash., he did not see 
that there was any special urgency in that case. The situation is 
this : The improvement proposed in the document that was included 
in the last bill, which failed, was only for the improvement of Skagit 
City Bar. There is a wide place in the river where, after freshets, 
the depth is reduced to as little at 3 feet, and in order to get over 
that bar the steamboats have to Avait for the tide, and sometimes 
they have to wait for the higher tide, which occurs only once in 24 
hours. Then, as time passes, that bar improves somewhat. Further 
improvements is recommended by dredging and training dikes so as 
to give passage at all stages of the tide. The report on the project 
states that during most of the months when the movement of crops 
is taking place the stage of the river is sufficient to allow the boats to 
go over the bar at those times. But there are times when the boats 
are delayed. 

I would like, however, to make this statement: You will under- 
stand, of course, that the Chief of Engineers has been tremendously 
busy lately, and the consideration that he has been able to give these 
projects has not been as elaborate as we would wish to give to them. 
Our considerations are based on the consideration we have been able 
to give them. 

With reference to the group item including San Diego, Los An- 
geles, and San Luis Obispo Harbors we see no objection, if you desire 
to separate them. Care should be taken to include the additional 
work at San Diego which has been introduced at this time. 
Mr. Kettner. That is satisfactory to me. 

Col. Newcomer. We do not see any objection, except that we prefer 
in general to observe the grouping principle. 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 157 

_ The CiiA^mtAx. I would say to the committee that I am in favor 
o'f this grouping phin and think it preserves the functions of the com- 
mittee, and at the same time gives that Latitude of administration by 
the War Department which makes for the best results of appropria- 
tions for maintenance. This is the only grouping in the bill about 
which, to my mind, there seemed to be any reasonable doubt. San 
Diego is a very important harbor. It is the only natural harbor be- 
tween San Francisco and the southern limits of California, if my 
recollection is correct. Los Angeles is a very important harbor, but 
to a large extent artificial. San Luis Obispo is not as important as 
the other two. The local reasons w^ould seem to indicate the wisdom 
of a separation tliere. so w^hat is the pleasure of the committee now 
about that separatiton ? 

(Mr. Osborne nioved that the items be separated. Seconded by 
Afr. Switzer and Mr. Costello. Carried unanimously.) 

Col. NEwxo:\rER. Of course, San Luis Obispo would be dropped out, 
ns there is no appropriation asked for it. 

The Cpi AIRMAN. Judge Booher is not here this morning, and in 
order that he may not feel neglected Ave wall give him every courtesy 
in his absence. 

As you will remember. Judge Booher, in regard to the item author- 
izing the Secretary of War to permit the Betterton-Morgan Co. to 
construct docks upon lots 1, 4, and 5, block 6, Seattle tide lands. He 
thought the provision Avas too restrictive on the Betterton-Morgan 
Co., to which the franchise Avas to be granted, in that it requires the 
said company to vacate said docks and remove all its property there- 
from upon 2-1 hours' notice to do so from the Secretary of War, and 
out of courtesA" to him that matter was also referred. 

Col. Xeavcomer. The situation about that is this : This paragraph, 
or section, was introduced by Senator Jones, or by the Senate Com- 
mittee on Commerce on his request, and it was understood to be 
approved by the corporation. The improvement has been under 
discussion for some time with the War Department, and I have con- 
sulted with the Chief of Engineers and Col. Keeler, who has been 
handling this particular case. It appears that there is no objection 
on the ground of navigation to this being done. The matter, hoAvever, 
has be,en referred to the district officer for report in vicAv of certain 
features that haA^e deA'eloped. 

There is some doubt as to Avhether the Government oAvns the land, 
as there is some question AA'hether the conditions attached to the 
grant of title from the State haA-e all been satisfied; so in case the 
Government has no title I suppose it Avoidd go back to the State. 
But if the Government's title is found to be good, this question has 
arisen: If this corporation Avishes to make use of the land of the 
Government there ought to be some payment to the (xovernment, 
either in the form of a rental, or Ave might sell it. Ap])arently 
there is no use that the Government AA'ill make of this land. This 
property abuts on u])land that is oAvned hy this corporation. If 
the title is in the Government it is proposed to ask the district 
officer to report upon the best procedure — whether to sell it or lease 
it, and upon Avhat terms. I notice that this item does not make a 
provision for payment of anything to the Government. That is the 
only thing that occurs to the Chief of Engineers in regard to it. AVe 



158 EIVER AND HAEBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

are not opposed to it. We think that the Government should be pro- 
tected, that is all. 

The Chairman. If I might make this suggestion without attempt- 
ing to minimize the force of Avhat Col. Newcomer says : As this w^as 
offered in the Senate and would probably be insisted upon again> 
and if insisted upon would receive the approval of the Senate Com- 
mittee on Commerce, and make an amendment making it necessary 
to send the bill to conference, and that as the Government is fully 
protected here, w^ould it not be well to let that remain in the bill, 
and if, before the bill comes up in the House, the Chief of Engi- 
neers receives any report from the district officer making an amend- 
ment necessary we can amend it on the floor. 

Mr. Kettner. I move that such a course be taken. 

Mr. SwiTZER. I second the motion. 

The Chairman. Without objection, then, that Avill be taken as 
the action of the committee. 

Mr. Dempset. Should there be a new survey for Buffalo Harbor^ 
I guess, in view of the recent report on that harbor, that is not 
necessary. Was not that provided for in the last bill ? What they 
want is a survey for widening the entrance channel. 

Col. Newcomer. We have made a report on the widening of that 
entrance, and that matter can be handled by a committee resolution 
calling for a review of that report, which would accomplish a further 
study of that matter. 

The Chairman. Then we will take it up, Mr. Dempsey, arid study 
it at some future time. 

Col. Newcomer. About Mobile Harbor, the thought occurred to 
me^ afterwards that this w^ording is not just as it should be. I would 
suggest a slight change in the wording on page 14, line 5. That 
was changed to read : " For maintenance of channel connecting 
Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound, $5,000; for improvement and 
maintenance of Mobile Harbor and bar in accordance with the 
report submitted in House Document Numbered Seventeen hundred 
and sixt3^-three. Sixty- fourth Congress, second session, and subject 
to the conditions set forth in said document." Now, I would like 
to substitute the following : " For maintenance of Mobile Harbor 
and bar and for improvement in accordance with the report, |ind so 
forth, $110,000," which makes money available for maintenance 
without being subject to any conditions. The improvement work 
only should be subject to the conditions. 

(Mr. Dempsey moved that the change as suggested be made. Mr, 
Kettner seconded the motion. Adopted unanimously.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Lever, of South Carolina, came in this morn- 
ing and said he could not remain because his Committee on Agricul- 
ture meets the same time. Pie desired me to bring to the attention 
of Col. Newcomer the new improvement on the Congaree River, 
which was included in the last bill and carried an appropriation of 
$100,000. The Congaree Eiver comes up to Columbia. S. C. A 
line of steamboats has been operating on that river for some years, 
and it is very important to Columbia that this line of boats be con- 
tinued. I happen to know about the local situation. On account 
of the regulation of rail rates as well as the prorating between rail- 
roads and the boats it is necessary to keep this line of boats running 
and he desired me to bring the matter before the committee and also 



RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 159 

to the attention of Col. Newcomer to ascertain if, under the circum- 
stances, that improvement was such an emergency as ought to be 
included in the bill. 

Col. Neavco3ier. One hundred thousand is the amount involved. 

Mr. CosTELLO. That is the river about which there was so much 
controversy in the last session, is it not? 

The Chairman. I think you are thinking of the group farther 
south, the Altamaha, Oconee, and Ocmulgee Elvers, Ga. 

Mr. CosTELLO. There is a railroad terminal at Columbia, is there 
not? 

The Chairman. Yes. It is quite a railroad point. The title of 
this group is Santee, Wateree, and Congaree Rivers, and there is 
$30,000 appropriated in this bill for maintenance, and the last bill 
carried this additional provision: ''For improvement of Congaree 
River in accordance Avith the report submitted in House Document 
Numbered seven hundred and tWo, Sixty-third Congress, second ses- 
sion, $50,000." 

Mr. CosTELi.0. Is not that the river that our friend Mr. Frear so 
strongly opposed? 

The Chairman. I do not think so. 

Col. Newcomer. I will look it over and speak to the Chief of 
Engineers in regard to the matter and report his decision to the 
committee. 

The Chairman. Now, before you leave, what is the pleasure of 
the committee if the Chief of Engineers recommends the inclusion 
of this item. 

Mr. Costello. We are framing this bill on his recommendations 
and if the necessity existed before and they can see it again, for my 
part I am perfectly satisfied. Our argument before the House and 
Senate is that this bill has the approval of the President and the 
War Department and that is why we are urging the passage of the 
bill. 

The Chairman. Well, is it the pleasure of the committee that if 
the Chief of Engineers recommands this improvement that we shall 
include it. Mr. Lever himself is a Very intelligent and most reason- 
able man. He said to me that if the Chief of Engineers could not 
recommend it he was for the bill. 

(Mr. Switzer moved that if the Chief of Engineers recommends 
its inclusion it be included. Mr. Kettner seconded the motion. 
Unanimousl}^ adopted.) 

The Chairman. In the report of Col. Newcomer in regard to mat- 
ters about New York Harbor, everything seems to be finally settled 
except the matter of 40 feet at Hell Gate. Col. Newcomer has just 
this morning stated that, with the information before the chief at 
this time, he does not feel free to recommend that authorization for 
40 feet, but he added that if the Nav}^ Department expresses a desire 
that this improvement be made as an improvement necessary for the 
Navy that the chief would regard their recommendation as control- 
ling the matter on the ground of military necessit3^ 

Mr. Dempsey. I move that if for any cause the Chief of Engineers 
recommends that the improvement of Hell Gate should be made to 
40 feet, upon the advice of the Navy Department, that the appro- 
priate change be made in the bill. 



160 BIVEE AND HAKBOE APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. DupRE. I move that Mr. Dempsey's motion be laid on the table. 

Mr. SwiTzEE. How much does that commit lis to. 

Mr. CosTELLO. I think, with this last addition to New York Harbor, 
involving about a million, and there is another appropriation that 
was increa^sed in this bill, so that there is practically $1,300,000 of 
an increase in these items outside of amounts that were agreed on 
in the previous bill that was lost in the Senate. 

Mr. Kettner. The total cost of the channel increased from 35 to 40 
feet across Diamond Eeef is $3,300,000. 

Col. Newcomer. I may have expressed the matter too strongly in 
saying that the Chief of Engineers would approve the request of the 
Navy Department. 

Mr. Kettner. Last evening I made a motion to authorize the 
chairman to introduce the bill. I renew that motion. 

Mr. Dempsey. I withdraw -my motion. 

The Chairman. All of us want to show the utmost courtesy to 
every member of the committee. Certainly, the chairman does and 
will. I think our good brother Hulbert has been a little too insistent 
in going over the head of the Secretar}^ of War to get the Navy 
Department to agree to something that they have not heretofore 
agreed to, but if he should come with evidence that the Navy Depart- 
ment does not wish this, then we can do nothing else except to ask 
the Chief of Engineers to consider it and make us a later report, and 
then it will be necessary to call the committee together and see what 
they will do. 

Mr. Dempsky. Mr. Powers, of 'Kentucky, asked me if the commit- 
tee had considered and allowed an appropriation for the upper Cum- 
berland above Nashville. 

The Chair^ian. I will just say this: We have included in this bill 
$632,000 for improvement below Nashville, the same amount as in the 
last bill. Above Nashville there is in this bill $5,000 for maintenance, 
but the last bill appropriated $200,000, as it passed the House, for 
the section above Nashville, which is not included in this bill. 

Mr. Dempsey. Of course, I am not at all familiar with the condi- 
tions there. I understand he Avants that project started and some 
locks and dame constructed, Avhich have been omitted and leave a gap 
in the impro\'ement. 

Col. Newcomer. We gave that project consideration, but we did 
not think it desirable to do that at this session. ' 

The Cii-AiKMAN. Now. gentlemen, the motion of Mr. Kettner is 
that the chairman be authorized to report the bill as adopted by the 
committee and to use every effort to obtain its consideration in the 
House. 

(Seconded by Mr. Switzer and can ied unanimously.) 



INDEX. 



A. 

Page. 

Abseeon Creek, N. J 31 

A^ate Bay Harbor, Minn 92 

Alabama River, Ala 76 

Alsoma Harbor, Wis 94 

Alloway Creek, X. J 33 

Alpena Harbor, Mich 93 

Altamaha River, Ga -^— 62 

Amite River. La 83 

Anacostia River, D. C 52 

Anahuae Channel, Tex 86 

Anclote River, Fla 7G 

Apalachicola River, Fla. : 

Channel through St. Georges Sound to Gulf of Mexico 71 

Channel to St. Andrews Bay 71 

Appomattox River, Ya 54 

Appoquinimink River, Del 36 

Aquia Creek, Va 52 

Aransas Bay and Pass, Tex 86 

Arcadia Harbor, Mich 93 

Arkansa>^ River, Ark 88 

Ashland Harbor, Wis 97 

Ashley River, S. C 60 

Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio 89 

Atchafalaya River, La., improvement from Morgan City to the Gulf of 

Mexico ^ 85 

B. 

Baltimore, Md 46 

Bartholomew Bayou, La., and Ark 87 

Bastrop Bayou, Tex 86 

Bay River, N. C 57 

Bear Creek. Miss 80 

Beaufort Harbor and River, N. C. : 

Improvement of waterway to Core Sound 57 

Improvement of waterway to New River 57 

Beaufort Inlet, X. C 57 

Waterway to Xorfolk, Va 55 

Waterway to Pamlico Sound 57 

Beaufort. S. C.. waterway to Savannah, Ga 61 

Bellingham Bay and Harbor. Wash 102 

Beverly Harbor, Mass 20 

Big Sunflower River, Miss 80 

Big Thoroughfare River, Md 46 

Biloxi Harbor, Miss 80 

Biscayne Bay, Fla 67 

Black River, La 87 

Black River, Mich 93 

Black Rock Harbor, X. Y 25 

Blackwater River, Fla 71 

Blackwater River, Va ' 55 

Blood River, La_-1 83 

Boca Ceiga Bay, Fla 70 

97510—17 11 161 



162 INDEX. 

Page. 

Boeuf Bayou, La §7 

Bogue Falia, La ^^ 

Boston, Mass 1(5^ 20 151 

Branford Harbor, Conn 'J^ ' 21 

Brazos River, Tex "5 

Improvement of mouth 5_87 

Bridgeport Harbor, Conn 21 

Broad Creek, Md , 46 

Broad Creek River, Del 55 

Broadkill River, Del 36 

Bronx River, N. Y 23 

Brunswick Harbor, Ga 15-62 

Buffalo Harbor, N. y1 I55 

Improvement of channels in waters connecting Great Lakes 93 

Burlington Harbor, Vt 22 

Calcasieu Pass and River, La 84 

Caloosahatchee River, Fla : 70 

Calumet Harbor and River, 111. and Ind 94 

Carnbridge Harbor, Md 46 

Cape Fear River, N. C 59 

Below Wilmington ; 59 

•Cape Vincent Harbor, N. Y 22 

€arrabelle Harbor and River, Fla 71 

Cascades Canal. Columbia River, Greg 101 

Cedar Bayou, Tex 86 

Charleston Harbor, S. C 60 

Charlevoix Harbor, Mich 93 

Charlotte Harbor, Fla - 70 

'Charlotte Harbor, N. Y 22 

CJhattahoochee River, Ga. and Ala : 71 

'Cheboygan Harbor, Mich , 93 

Cheesequake Creek, N. J ■ 31 

Chefuncte River, La 1 83 

Chehalis River, Wash 101 

Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Canal, Del. and Md 5-19-38 

Chester River, Md 46 

Chicago Harbor and River, 111 94 

Channels in waters connecting Great Lakes_ 93 

Chincoteague Inlet and Bay, Va 37-38 

Chipola River, Fla 71 

Chocolate Bayou, Tex 86 

Choctawhatchee River, Fla. and Ala 71 

Choptank River, Md 46 

Claiborne Harbor, Md 46 

Clatskanie River, Greg 101 

Clear Creek, Tex 86 

Clearwater Harbor, Bla 70 

Cleveland Harbor, Ghio . 89 

Clinton River, Mich 93 

Club Creek, Ga 62 

Cohansey River, N. J ' 33 

€old Spring Inlet, N. J 71 

Ooldwater River, Miss 80 

Columbia River, Greg, and Wash. : 

Cascades Canal 101 

Celilo Falls to Snake River, including tributaries, improvement from_ 101 

Celilo Falls to The Dalles Rapids 101 

Mouth 105 

Vancouver, Wash., to Willamette River 101 

Wenatchee, Wash., to Bridgeport : 102 

Compton Creek, N. J •_ 31 

Conecuh River, Ala 71 

Congaree River, S. C 60, 158 



INDEX. 163 

Page. 

Conneaut Harbor, Ohio • 89 

Connecticut River, IMass. and Conn 22 

Consolidation of items__^ 6-124 

Contentuia Creek, N. C 57 

Cooper River (Creelv), N. J 33 

Coosa River, Ga. and Ala 76 

Coos Bay Harbor and River, Oreg 101 

Coquille River, Oreg 101 

Core Sound, N. C, improvement of waterway to Beaufort Harbor 57 

Corney Bayou, La _' 87 

Corpus Christi Bay and Harbor, Tex. (waterway Galveston to Corpus 

Christi) . 86 

Corsica Uiver, Md 46 

(/•owhejid River, Ga 62 

Cowlitz River, Wash 101 

Crescent City Harbor, Cal 115 

Crisfield Harbor, Md 46 

Crystal River, Fla 70 

Cumberland River, Ky. and Tenn : 88, 160 

Current River, Ark. and Mo 88 

Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, Ohio 89 

Cypress Bayou, Tex. and La 85 

D. 

Dalles-Celilo Canal, Oreg. and Wash 101 

D'Arbonne Bayou, La 87 

Darien Harbor, Ga 62 

Deal Island, Md., improvement of low^er thoroughfare at Wenona 46 

Debris, mine, in California 57 

Deep Bay, N. C, improvement of waterways to Swan Quarter Bay 57 

Delaware Bay and River, N. J., Pa., and Del. : 

Improvement of river, Philadelphia to the sea 34, 42 

Lewes, Del., iron pier near Lewes 36 

Des Cannes Bayou, La 84 

Detroit River. Mich__: 93 

Dickinson Bayou, Tex 86 

Dog River, Miss 77 

Dorchester Bay, Mass 20 

Double Bayou, Tex 86 

Duck Island Harbor, Conn 21 

Duluth, Minn. : 

Channels in waters connecting Great Lakes 93 

Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minn 92' 

Dunns Creek and Crescent Lake, Fla 69 

E. 

East Bay Bayou, Tex_ 86 

East Pearl River, Miss 80 

East River, N. Y 28,117 

Echo Bav Harbor, New Rochelle, N. Y 4,15,19,23 

Elizabeth River, N. J 31 

Elk River, Md 46 

Escambia River, Fla 71 

Estherville-Minim Creek Canal, S. C 60 

Eestimates of appropriations required 2, 124 

F. 

Fairport Harbor, Ohio 89 

Fancy Bluff Creek, Ga 62 

Feather River, Cal 101 

Fishing Creek, N. C 57 

Fivemile River Harbor, Conn 21 

Flint River, Ga 71 

Frankfort Harbor, Mich 93 

Freeport Harbor, Tex 87 



164 INDEX. 

G. 

Page. 

Galveston Bay and Harbor, Tex 86 

Improvement of waterway to Houston 86 

Waterway to Corpus Christ! 86 

Gasconade River, Mo 96 

Gloucester Harbor, Mass l 20 

Grand Haven Harbor, Mich 93 

Grand Marais, Mich 92 

Grand River, La 82 

Grand River, Mich 93 

Grays Harbor, Wash 101 

Grays River, Wash 101 

Great Lakes, channels in waters connecting 93 

Great Peedee River, S. C 60 

Great Sodus Bay, N. Y 22 

Green Bay Harbor, Wis 94 

Greenwich Harbor, Conn 21 

Grossetete Bayou, La ^ 82 

Grouping of items 6, 124 

Gulfport Harbor, Miss 80 

H. 

Harbor Beach, Mich.; improvements of harbor of refuge 93 

Harlem River, N. Y 25 

Hillsboro Bay and River, Fla 68 

Hilo Harbor. Hawaii 102 

Holland Harbor, Mich 93 

Holmes River, Fla L 71 

Honolulu, Hawaii 102 

Hoquiam River, Wash L 101 

Housatonic River, Wash 21 

Houston to Galveston ship channel, Tex 86. 

Hudson River, improvement at New York 26 

Humboldt 'Bay and Harbor, Cal . 101 

Huron Harbor, Ohio 89 

I. 

Illinois River, 111 ___! 94 

Indiana Harbor, Ind 94 

Indian River, Fla 67 

J. 

Jacksonville, Fla., waterway to Beaufort 57 

James River, Va 54 

Johnsons Bayou. La 85 

Jordon River, Miss 80 

K. 

Kahuliu Harbor, Hawaii 102 

Kalamazoo River, Mich 93 

Kenosha Harbor, Wis 94 

Kewaunee Harbor, Wis 94 

Keweenaw Canal, across Keweenaw Point, Mich. (Keweenaw Bay-Lake 

Superior waterway) 92 

Keyport Harbor, N. J 31 

Key West Harbor, Fla 67 

Kissimmee River, Fla ^ 70 

L. 

Lafourche Bayou, La 82 

Lake of the Woods, Minn 94 

Lake Pontchartrain, La 83 

Lakes, Great, channels in waters connecting 93 



INDEX. 165 

Page. 

Lake Washington Canal, Wash -— 102 

L'AnsuiHe Kiver, Ark 88 

La Trappo. Md 46 

I>ee Shui.uii. Anjilachicohi Tiivor. Phi 71 

l^ipsic Kiver, Del 36 

Lewis River, Wash - 101 

Little Elk River. INId 46 

Little Peede River, S. C ' 60 

Little River, Del 36 

Little Sodiis Bay, N. Y ' 22 

Lorain Harhor. Ohio 89 

Los Angeles. Cal 13,100,156 

Lower Chipola River, Fla 71 

Lower Thoroughfare. Wenona. Deal Island, Md 46 

Ludington Harrhor. Mich ^ 93 

M. 

Mackinac Harbor, Mich 93 

Macon Bavoii. La 89 

Maiden River. Mass 20 

Mamaroneck Harbor. N. Y : 23 

Manatee River, Fla 68 

Manchac Pass, La 83 

Manistee Harbor and River, Mich 93 

Manistiqne Harbor, Mich : 94 

Manitowoc Harbor. Wis 94 

Manokin River, Md 46 

Manteo Bay. N. C 57 

Mantua Creek. N. J 33 

Mare Island Strait, Cal 101, 107 

INIarquette Bay and Harbor, Mich 92 

Mattawan Creek. X. J 31 

Mattaponi River, Va . 53 

Maurice River, X. J ■- 33 

Meherrin River, X. C 55 

Menominee Harbor and River, Mich, and Wis 94 

Menominee River, Wis 94 

Mermentau River, La ^ 84 

Improvement of waterway to Sabine River 82 

IMcrrimack River, Mass 20 

Miami Harbor, Fla 67 

Michigan City Harbor, Ind 94 

Milford Harbor, Conn 21 

Milford Haven Harbor, Yn. 53 

Milwaukee, Wis 94 

Minim Creek-P]stherville Canal, S. C 60 

Minnesota River, Minn 94 

Mispillion River, Del_— 36 

Mississippi River : 

Brainerd to Grand Rapids, Minn 96 

Head of Passes to Cubits Gap, dredging shoals SO 

Head of Passes to Ohio River 5-19 

Leech River 96 

Missouri River to Minneapolis, Minn 6-95 

Ohio River to Missouri River »__ 95 

Reservoir dams at headwaters 96 

St. Paul, Minn., to Minneapolis 96 

South Pass 80 

Southwest Pass, Mississippi River 80 

Mississippi Sound, Miss, and Ala. : 

Waterway to Sabine River 82 

Horn Island Pass, Miss 77 

Missouri River 6-97 

Mobile Bay and Harbor, Ala 105, 158 

Improvement of harbor 72 

Improvement of channel to Mississippi Sound 72 



166 . INDEX. 

Page. 

INIokelumne River, Cal . lOX 

Monroe Harbor, Mich 93 

Monterey Harbor, Cal lOi 

Morehead City Harbor, N. C 57 

Mormon Channel, San Joaquin River, Cal 101 

Murderkill River, Del 36 

Muskegon Harbor and River, Mich 93 

Mystic River, Conn ^ 21 

Mystic River, Mass : 20 

N. 

Napa River, Cal lOi 

Narrows of Lake Champlain, N. Y. and Vt , 22 

Natalbany River, La 83 

Nehalem Bar and Bay, Oreg 101 

Neuse River, N. C 57 

Newburyport Harbor, Mass 20 

Ne\v Haven Harbor, Conn 21 

New Jersey, canal across State of i 41 

New London, Conn 21 

Newport News, Va., improvement of channel to " 52 

New River, N. C 57 

New York Bay and Harbor, N. Y 24, 42, 154 

Nezpique Bayou, La 84 

Nome Harpor and mouth of Snake River, Alaska 102 

Nomini Creek, Va 52 

Norfolk Harbor, Va 15, 19, 22, 104 

Improvement of waterway to Beaufort Inlet 55 

Northeast River, N. C 59 

Norwalk Harbor, Conn ' 21 

O. 

Oak Bay to Port Townsend Bay, Wash., waterway 102 

Oakland Harbor, Cal 101 

Occoquan Creek, Va 52 

Ocmulgee River, Ga 62 

Oconee River, Ga 62 

Oconto Harbor, Wis 94 

Ogdensburg Harbor, N. Y 22,155 

Ohio River 17, 18, 90 

Oklawaha River, Fla 69 

Olcott Harbor, N. Y 22 

Oldmans Creek, N. J 33 

Oly'mpia Harbor, Wash 102 

Ontonagon Harbor and River, Mich 92 

Orange River, Fla 70 

Osage River, Mo ; 96 

Oswego Harbor, N. Y . 22 

Ouachita River, Ark. and La 87 

Oyster Creek, Tex., improvement 86 

P. 

Pagan River, Va •">'* 

Pamlico River, N. C ^'^ 

Pamlico Sound, N. C, waterway to Beaufort Inlet 57 

Pamunkey River, Va 53 

Pascagoula Harbor and River, Miss 77, 80 

Pass Cavallo, Tex., improvement of channel to Port Lavaca 86 

Pawcatuck River, R. I. and Conn ^- 21 

Pearl River, Miss 80 

Peekskill Harbor, N. Y 24 

Pensacola Bay and Harbor, Fla '^1 

Petaluma Creek, Cal 101 

Petoskey Harbor, Mich 93 



INDEX. ■ 167 

Page. 

Pittsburgh. Pa 83 

Plantation Creek, Ga 62 

Plaquemine Bayou, La 82 

Plaquemine Brul6 Bayou, La 84 

Plattsburg Harbor, N. Y ^ 22 

Plymouth Harbor, Mass 20 

Pocomoke River, Md 46 

Ponchatoula River, La., improvement of Tickfaw River 88 

Pontchartrain Lake, La 83, 106 

Portage Lake, Manistee County, Mich., harbor of refuge 93 

Port Aransas. Tex 86 

Port Arthur Canal, Tex 85 

Port Bolivar, Tex 86 

Port (Miester Harbor. N. Y 28, 155 

Port Clinton Harbor, Ohio 89 

Port Henry Harbor, N. Y 22 

Portland Harbor, Me 151 

Port Lavaca, Tex., improvement of channel to Pass Cavallo 86 

Port Townsend Bay to Oak Bay, \yash., waterway 102 

Port Washington Harbor, Wis ^ 94 

Port Wing Harbor, Wis 92 

Potomac River, improvement at Washington, D. C 52 

Provincetown Harbor, Mass 20 

I'uget Sound. Wash 102 

Pultneyville Harbor, N. Y 22 

Q. 

Queenstown Harbor, Md L 46 

Queue de Tortue Bayou. La : 84 

R. 

Raccoon Creek. X. J__ 33 

Racine Harbor. Wis 94 

Rappahannock River, Va 53 

Raritan Bay and River, N. J 3 

Red River. La., Ark.. Tex., and Okla 85, 87 

Red River of the North, Minn, and N. Dak 94 

Redwood City Harbor, Cal 10 

Redwood Creek, Cal 101 

Rehoboth Bay. Del., waterway to Delaware Bay 37 

Richmond Harbor. Cal 101 

Rojinoke River. N. C 55 

Rockhall Harbor, Md 46 

Rogers City Harbor, Mich 93 

Rondout Harbor, N. Y 24 

Rouge River, Mich 93 

S. 

Sabine-Neches Canal 85 

Sabine River. Tex. : 

Improvement of Sabine Pass Harbor 85 

Waterway to Mississippi River 82 

Waterway to INIermentau River. La 82 

Sacramento and Fe;ither Rivers 19-101 

Saginaw River, ISIich 93 

St. Andrews Bay, Fla. : 

Improvement of bay 71 

Improvement of channel to Apalachicola River 71 

St. Clair Flats Canal, Lake, and River. Mich., improvement of channels in 

waters connecting the Great Lakes 93 

St. Croix River, Wis. and Minn 94 

St. Francis River, Ark. and Mo 88 

St. Johns River, Fla. : 

Between Jacksonville and Palatka, including Orange Mills Flats 69 

Between Palatka and Lake Harney 69 

Jacksonville to the ocean 69 

Waterway to St. Johns River 61 



168 IlS^DEX. 

Page. 

St. Jonos River, Del 3^ 

St. Josephs Bay, Fla., improvement of entrance 71 

St. Joseph Harbor and River, Mich 93 

St. Lucie Inlet, Fla 67 

St. Marys River and St. Marys Falls Canal, Mich., channels in waters 

connecting the Great Lakes 93 

St. Marys River, Ga. and Fla 62 

St. Petersburg Harbor, Fla 68 

Salem Harbor, Mass ^ 20 

Salem River, N. J 33 

Saline River, Ark 87 

San Diego Harbor, Cal 13-15,100-104,156 

Sandusky Harbor, Ohio 89 

San Francisco Bay and Harbor, Cal 101 

San Joaquin River. Cal 101 

San Juan Harbor, P. R 102 

San Luis Obispo Harbor, Cal 97 

San Pablo Bay, Cal 101 

Santa Rosa Sound, Fla., improvement of The Narrows 71 

Santee River, S. C 60 

Sapelo Bar and Harbor, Ga 62 

Sarasota Bay. Fla 70 

Satilla River, Ga 62 

Saugatuck Harbor, Mich., improvement 92 

Saugatuck River, Conn 21 

Saugerties Harbor, N. Y 24 

Savannah Harbor and River. Ga 61 

Schuylkill River, Pa * 33 

Scuppernong River, N. C 57 

Section 2 124 

Section 3 1 135- 

Section 4 139 

Section 5 145 

Section 6 146 

Section 7 146 

Section 8 146 

Section 9 147 

Section 10 147 

Section 11 148 

Section 12 148 

Section 13 148 

Sheboygan Harbor, Wis 94 

Ship Island Harbor and Pass, Miss., improvement of pass and channel 

to Gulfport 80 

Shoal Harbor, N. J 31 

Shrewsbury River, N. J 31 

Siuslaw River, Oreg 101 

Skagit River, Wash 102, 156 

Slaughter Creek, Md 46 

Smiths Creek, N. C 57 

Smyrna River, Del 36 

Snake River, Idaho, Oreg., and Wash 101 

Snohomish River, Wash 102 

South Haven Harbor, Mich 93 

Southport Harbor, Conn 21 

SoHth River, N. C o7 

South River, N. J 31 

Stamford Harbor, Conn 21 

Steele Bayou, Miss 80 

Stockton Channel, San Joaquin River, Cal 101 

Stonington Harbor, Conn 21 

Sturgeon Bay and Lake Michigan Canal, Wis 94 

Suisun Creek or Channel, Cal 101 

Sulphur River, Ark. and Tex 85 

Sunflower River, Miss., improvement of Big Sunflower River 80 

Superior Bay and Harbor, Wis 92 



INDEX. 169 

f age. 

Suwannee Kiver, Fla 70 

Swan Quarter Bay to Deep Bay, N. C, improvement of waterway 57 

Swift Creek, N. O '_ 57 

Swinomish Slough, Wash 102 

T. 

Tacoma Harbor, Wash 102 

Tallahatchie River, Miss 80 

Tampa Bay and Harbor, Fla 68 

Tar River, X. C 57 

Tarrytown Harbor, X. Y 24 

Tchula Lake, Miss 80 

Teche Bayou, La 82 

Tennessee River 89 

Tensas River, La 87 

Terrebonne Bayou, La 82 

Texas City Harbor, Tex 86 

Thames River, Conn 21 

Thoroughfare Bay. N. C 57 

Tickfaw River, La., improvement of, including tributaries 83 

Tilghman Island Harbor, Md- 46 

Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oreg 101 

Toledo Harbor, Ohio 89 

Tombigbee River, Ala. and Miss 76 

Toms River. X. J 31 

Tonawanda Harbor, X\ Y 25 

Traverse Lake. Minn, and S. Dak 94 

Tred Avon River. Md 46 

Trent River. X. C 57 

Trinity River. Tex 86 

Tuckerton Creek, X. J 31-46 

Turtle Cove. Tex., improvement of waterway via 86 

Twitch Cove and Big Thoroughfare River, Md 46 

Two Rivers Harbor, Wis 94 

Tyaskin CWetipquin) Creek, Md 46 

U. 

Tpper Chipola River, Fla 71 

Upper Machodoc Creek, Ya 52 

LVbana Creek, Ya 53 

V. 

Yermilion Bayou, La., improvement of channel, bay, and passes 84 

A'ermilion Harbor, Ohio, improvement 89 

W. 

Waccamaw River, X. C, and S. C 60 

Wappinger Creek, X\ Y 24 

Warroad Harbor and River, Minn 94 

Warwick River, Md 46 

Washington Bayou and Lake, Miss 80 

Washington Lake, Wash 102 

Wateree River. S. C ^ 60 

Water hyacinths, removal of : 

From Florida waters , 70 

From Louisiana waters 85 

From Mississippi waters 85 

From Texas waters 85 

Waterways— Xorfolk, Y/i., to Beaufort Inlet, X. C 55 

AYaukegan Harbor, 111 94 

Westchester Creek. X^ Y 23 

Westport Harbor. Conn 21 

Weymouth River, Mass 20 

White Lake Harbor, Mich 93 

White River, Ark S8 



170 INDEX. 

Face. 

Wicomico River, Md J^ 

Willamette River, Oreg ^y} 

Willapa Harbor and River, Wash J-^l 

Wilmington Harbor, Del ^^ 

Winyah Bay, S. C ^^ 

WMthlacooche River, Fla ^ 

Wolf River, Miss., improvement : ^ 

Woodbridge Creek, N. J ^i 

W^oodbury Creek, N. J ^^ 

Y. 

Yamhill River, Oreg 1^1 

Yaquina Bar, Bay, and Harbor, Oreg j-^ 

Yaquina River, Oreg l^J- 

Yazoo River, Miss °^ 

Z. 

Zippel Bay, Minn 94 

o 



